Thomas EGLI

Back to origins

Thomas EGLI — 2026-03-30T16:53:20Z

Finance that generates profits while staying connected to the real world

It may be time to return to a forgotten truth: originally, finance was not meant to float above the world. It was made to irrigate the real economy, to enable useful activities to be born, to grow, to produce, to employ, to repair, to pass on. It was a means. Not a separate universe.

Yet, for several decades, a growing share of financial flows has moved away from the field, from concrete needs, from human timeframes, from projects led by women and men who are building something tangible. This disconnection has produced a great deal of sophistication, but not always much meaning. It has also created a paradox that has become central: there is a huge amount of capital available, and yet a multitude of solid, useful, profitable, and necessary projects still struggle to find the right financing. This is precisely the diagnosis set out in the White Book of the Geneva Foundation for the Future, which describes the coexistence of excess capital and a deficit of financed solutions, as well as a lack of common interfaces between investors, philanthropists, and project leaders.

Returning to the origins therefore does not mean going backward. It means rediscovering the primary vocation of money: to support what has value in the real world, while generating income for those who commit it.

This idea is now attracting very different profiles. Long-established wealthy families seeking to pass on something other than financial assets. More recent, entrepreneurial fortunes that want their capital to keep building. Banks, funds, family offices, foundations, companies, individual investors. More modest wealth as well, because they too want to grow their money without feeling that they are feeding an abstract or destructive mechanism.

The good news is that this reconnection between profit and reality is no longer a marginal intuition. The global impact investing market is estimated at 1.571 trillion dollars in assets under management in 2024, with strong growth since 2019, and the GIIN explicitly reminds us that impact investments can target returns ranging from below market to above market, depending on the investor's intention and strategy.

In other words: yes, it is possible to seek a ROI for oneself while financing projects connected to the field.

Making money “with,” no longer “against”

For a long time, an implicit opposition structured people's thinking: on one side profitability, on the other usefulness. On one side return, on the other ethics. On one side performance, on the other impact.

This opposition is holding up less and less.

Why? Because the major risks of the 21st century are no longer peripheral. They are at the heart of the economy. Climate, resource scarcity, the fragility of supply chains, social tensions, public distrust, regulatory change: all of this ends up affecting profitability itself. Projects that integrate these realities from the outset are not outside the market; they are often better suited to the world that is coming. Looking risks in the face and integrating them into the business model already means turning them into drivers of value and resilience.

Finance connected to the real world therefore does not mean sacrificing financial return. It means producing a financial return rooted in concrete usefulness, in tangible assets, in necessary services, in business models that respond to real needs.
It is also, quite simply, a question of readability. When an investor understands what their money is actually doing, whom it serves, through what flows it returns, with what risks and what governance, they recover an intelligence of investment that growing complexity has sometimes blurred.

Another promise made to the investor: understandable income

One of the major contributions of the approach defended by the Geneva Foundation for the Future is to place at the center a finance directly connected to the field, with an explicit desire to bypass as much as possible opaque layers of intermediation and overly abstract instruments. The foundation's brochure speaks of a finance “directly connected to the field,” of a desire to “re-enchant finance without derivatives,” and the official White Book even states: “We believe in reconnecting finance to real initiatives, bypassing financial derivatives and complex intermediation to ensure full transparency and tangible outcomes.”

This orientation changes many things for the investor.

First, it changes their relationship to risk. A risk is not necessarily lower because it is more sophisticated. On the contrary, it may become less readable. Conversely, a well-structured, well-governed, well-phased field project, with identified revenues, traceable costs, and simple indicators, can offer a more concrete reading of the risk-return ratio.

It then changes their relationship to time. Not all investors seek the same timeframe. Some want to grow capital over ten years. Others seek quarterly flows. Still others want to be able to start small, without devoting much time to it, without entering into an overly demanding adventure, but with the satisfaction that their money is feeding a useful economy.

This is precisely where the “back to origins” approach becomes powerful: it does not ask everyone to become a field expert. It offers simple entry modes, gradual, not very time-consuming, but connected to real projects.

The real issue is not only impact. It is the circulation of money

One of the central problems is less the absence of capital than the poor circulation of that capital. There are many relatively recurring obstacles: a mismatch between the timeframe of capital and that of projects, fragmentation of financing channels, absence of refinancing mechanisms, unsuitable allocation criteria, withdrawal of funders in the face of perceived risk, and weakened monitoring when liquidity is lacking.

The AGILE White Book addresses this problem in its various chapters on this excess capital facing a large number of very good unfunded projects, on the flows to unlock for scaling up, and on the fracture between local projects and globalized finance.
This analysis aligns with a broader observation: UNCTAD estimates that the annual investment gap to achieve the SDGs in developing countries is around 4 trillion dollars per year, while the decline in international project financing and sustainable investment is aggravating this tension.

The issue therefore becomes very concrete: how can money be made to circulate more directly, more intelligently, more quickly, toward truly useful projects, while enabling investors to obtain the income they are seeking?

ROI for oneself is not taboo

It must be said clearly here: wanting a return for oneself is not a problem. It is even healthy, provided one is clear-eyed about what one is financing to obtain it.
A bank needs profitability. A fund must serve its subscribers. A company must allocate its capital with discipline. An individual wants to grow their savings. An institution seeks to secure and enhance its assets. None of this is contradictory to a connection with the real world.

What changes is the type of return one agrees to look at.

First, there is purely financial return. It matters, of course, and today impact projects and mission-driven companies are capable of delivering very good financial returns on investment. Then there is the stability created by more resilient models. There is also avoided risk. There is the quality of territorial anchoring. There is reputation, compliance, social acceptability, access to new markets, the loyalty of communities of clients or partners. Many of these dimensions end up translating into economic performance, even if they do not all appear immediately in a spreadsheet.

The GIIN also reminds us that impact investing is compatible with a wide range of financial objectives, and that investors are involved in very concrete sectors: energy, health, sustainable agriculture, infrastructure, housing, microfinance.
True maturity therefore consists in embracing a simple idea: seeking ROI and seeking real usefulness can now go together.

All forms of wealth are concerned

It would be wrong to believe that this transformation concerns only a few major international players.

It concerns:

small fortunes that want to begin with modest but visible tickets;
established families that wish to pass on capital more consistent with their vision of the world;
new fortunes resulting from recent wealth transfers, which quite rightly seek to give meaning to their new financial capacities;
entrepreneurs who have recently become wealthy, who prefer to invest in dynamics they understand;
banks and managers seeking more credible and better-justified offerings;
companies that want to transform cash reserves, a foundation, an investment vehicle, or a diversification strategy;
individual investors who have neither the time nor the desire to become experts, but who want their money to serve something real.

There is a new generation of very diverse investors: individuals, family offices, public or philanthropic institutions, all interested in different return horizons and in a more direct relationship with the field.

This point must be emphasized: there is no single culture of wealth. Some fortunes are cautious, patrimonial, discreet. Others are aggressive, entrepreneurial, opportunistic. Some are inherited, others are earned in a single generation. Some seek transmission first, others growth, and still others moral consistency. A finance reconnected to the real world can speak to all of them, because it does not ask them to adopt a single philosophy; it offers them the chance to rediscover a readable link between capital, activity, and result.

How to do it without it becoming time-consuming

This is often where everything is decided. Many investors are interested in theory, then step back in practice because they imagine an involvement that is too heavy, too technical, too uncertain.

Yet there are simple, not very demanding ways of feeding an economy connected to field projects.

The first consists in investing in vehicles or portfolios already structured around real projects, with an evaluation methodology and pooled monitoring. The investor is not asked to analyze everything by themselves. They benefit from a selection framework, governance filters, a reading of risk, and light but serious monitoring.
The second consists in favoring phased projects, broken down into successive sub-projects. Your working document insists strongly on this point: a large project does not need to be financed as a single block; it can be structured into economically viable stages, each with its needs, revenues, milestones, and possible returns. This makes it possible to diversify entry points, obtain gradual returns, and reinvest as progress is made.

The third consists in accepting the plurality of timeframes. Not all returns have to arrive in ten years. Some projects can generate shorter-term flows: monthly, quarterly, or within a three- to five-year horizon. Others require more patience. Your notes specifically mention this multi-temporality and the idea of adapting instruments to the real rhythms of projects.

The fourth consists in entering through simple and understandable forms of financing: straightforward debt, revenue sharing, financing backed by phases of activity, small-scale impact bonds, revolving funds, micro-leasing, or hybrid vehicles when justified. When the structure remains readable, the investor does not need to devote excessive energy to it.

The fifth consists in relying on a translation body between worlds. This is exactly the role that the Geneva Foundation for the Future assigns to its operational center and to the AGILE tool: creating a bridge between financiers, philanthropists, institutions, and project leaders, streamlining evaluation, pooling criteria, simplifying dialogue.

Simple can be more serious than complicated

There is a very strong temptation in the financial world to confuse sophistication with solidity.

Yet, very often, robustness comes from elsewhere: from a clear intention, reliable governance, an understandable economic model, a capacity to actually produce, an anchoring in lasting needs.

That is why the AGILE tool is interesting. In its official reference version, it is based on five families of criteria: Alignment, Governance, Intention, Leadership, Efficiency. It is a common grammar for identifying, evaluating, supporting, and growing impact initiatives.

This amounts to examining five very concrete things:

Alignment: is the project consistent with values, local needs, reference frameworks, and the reality of the field?
Governance: who decides, how, with what transparency, what responsibility, and what capacity for adaptation?
Intention: is the project truly seeking to create native positive impact, or merely dressing up an unchanged model?
Leadership: do the people leading the initiative have the vision, credibility, and capacity to mobilize others around them?
Efficiency: are resources used with frugality, intelligence, and economic viability?

This logic also aligns with international impact management standards. The Operating Principles for Impact Management, supported by the IFC and now widely adopted by investors, are specifically aimed at integrating impact throughout the entire investment cycle, from design to monitoring.

In other words, simplicity is not amateurism. Simplicity can be a higher form of rigor.

Disintermediate without disorganizing

Speaking of finance connected to the real world does not mean eliminating all intermediation. It means eliminating unnecessary or opaque intermediation, or intermediation that creates distance.

Analytical skills are needed. Monitoring, compliance, and structuring are needed, but it is not necessary to add layers that move money ever further away from what it is actually financing.

The right intermediary is the one that brings closer, clarifies, secures, makes visible. Not the one that dilutes understanding.

That is why blended finance or hybrid structuring approaches can be useful, provided they remain faithful to their purpose. The OECD reminds us that blended finance must be anchored in a development logic, mobilize private capital in an additional way, be adapted to the local context, and rely on partnerships based on trust and transparency.

In simpler terms: the right structure is the one that helps a real project cross a threshold, not the one that complicates investment to the point of making its purpose forgotten.

What each type of investor can do

For an individual investor, the simplest path often consists in entering through a pooled vehicle, or through clearly structured and already supported projects, with an explicit return horizon and light reporting. No need to be omnipresent; above all, one must be able to understand.

For a bank, the challenge is to build or attach itself to a credible offering: investment products linked to real impact assets, co-financing, dedicated lines, risk-sharing mechanisms, services for clients who now demand meaning without giving up return.

For a fund, the priority is to strengthen the quality of sourcing, evaluation, and monitoring, while avoiding both greenwashing and poorly designed idealism. This is precisely where a common grammar such as AGILE can reduce friction costs and improve mutual understanding.

For a company, it may involve directing part of its cash reserves, foundation, innovation investments, or diversification strategy toward projects connected to its territories, value chains, or transformation challenges.

For a philanthropic institution, the question is no longer only to give, but also to invest part of the balance sheet in a way that is consistent with its mission. Your reference documents in fact insist on this evolution: philanthropy tends to move closer to investment for the future, in a more strategic, measurable, and systemic logic.

For a family office, reconnecting to the real world is often a way of bringing together several objectives in a single movement: preserving, growing, passing on, giving meaning, staying close to reality.

Finance that is closer is not naive finance

This is not about romanticizing field projects. Not all of them are solid. Not all are financeable. Not all generate a return. Not all are well governed.

That is precisely why evaluation matters.

The AGILE tool approach of Impact Finance does not seek to idealize the field but to make it readable, comparable, credible, and supportable. It is designed to identify, evaluate, monitor, coach, accelerate, and then assess projects, with a logic of monitoring and progression.

A finance reconnected to the real world is therefore not a “kind” finance. It is a finance that is more demanding about what matters: the reality of the need, the quality of the model, the consistency of the intention, the reliability of governance, the possibility of income.

Returning to the origin may mean rediscovering the future

At bottom, the choice of a “Back to origins” says something very current.

It is not about rejecting finance. It is about putting it back in its proper place and restoring its nobility. About once again making investment an act of discernment and an economic, social, and environmental driver. About reconnecting money to projects that produce something visible. About acknowledging that one can seek a return for oneself while strengthening an economy that repairs, heals, feeds, trains, relocalizes, transforms.

That may be the most important shift: no longer asking the investor to choose between personal interest and the general interest. Instead, offering them

mechanisms where the two converge.

The Geneva Foundation for the Future expresses this ambition very simply: to create a bridge between siloed worlds, to make the links between finance, philanthropy, and field projects more fluid, and to put investment back in the service of a resilient and regenerative economy.

From this perspective, generating profit while staying connected to the real world is not a moral concession made to finance. It may be its healthiest, most readable, and ultimately most robust form.

Because finance that understands what it is financing also better understands where its return will come from.

And because capital that nourishes real life often ends up creating more lasting value than capital that circulates only among abstractions.

Why Terra Scientifica

Thomas EGLI — 2026-03-12T18:37:12Z

An intuition that became a collective reality

When I imagined Terra Scientifica in 2014, the idea might have seemed marginal.

Yet the reasoning was simple.

Tourism is one of the most powerful industries in the world. It structures territories, mobilizes millions of jobs and profoundly influences the way societies perceive nature, cultures and knowledge.

If such an industry exists, then it can produce two types of effects.

It can be extractive, meaning it consumes resources, weakens territories and produces negative externalities.

Or it can become regenerative, meaning it contributes to knowledge, education, the protection of nature and the development of territories.

Terra Scientifica was born from this simple question :

What if tourism became a driver of science, education and ecological transformation ?

The idea took time to mature.

Seven years were necessary to structure the concept, meet scientists, mobilize educators, engage with tourism actors, bring together associations and entrepreneurs.

The first edition of Terra Scientifica finally took place in 2022.

In 2026, the fifth edition confirms a very clear dynamic : Terra Scientifica is no longer just an event. It has become a living platform where science, travel, regenerative economy and impact entrepreneurship meet.

All the information about the event, its program and the experiences offered are available on :
https://terra-scientifica.com

Transforming tourism rather than stopping it

For several years, part of the ecological debate has opposed two visions.

The first considers that tourism should be drastically reduced, or even stopped.

The second considers that it must be deeply transformed.

But the observable reality is unambiguous : global tourism continues to grow.

Not only has it not stopped, but it is accelerating even faster than five or ten years ago.

In its current form, this growth often follows a logic of extractive economy : pressure on ecosystems, artificialization of territories, energy overconsumption and intensive transport.

Waiting for tourism to disappear is therefore not a realistic strategy.

Meanwhile, the extractive economy continues to progress.

A pragmatic approach consists of transforming tourism from within.

And since travel can already be transformative for travelers when it is experiential, it might as well also become positively transformative for the planet : this is precisely the ambition of Terra Scientifica.

This transformation involves several profound evolutions :

shorter tourism
slower tourism
more useful tourism
participatory tourism
engaging tourism

It is no longer simply about traveling to consume a destination.

It is about traveling to contribute to understanding the world and preserving it.

Giving humans their place back in nature

Terra Scientifica is also based on a simple but often forgotten idea.

Human beings are part of nature.

The ecological debate is sometimes marked by a vision in which the best solution would be the total absence of human intervention.

But in practice, the absence of intervention often actually leaves room for the most extractive actors.

When scientists, educators and citizens actively engage in territories, it becomes possible to invent forms of regenerative human presence.

This is the logic that inspires Terra Scientifica.

Explore.
Learn.
Discover.
Understand.
Protect.
Care.

Participatory scientific travel

At the heart of the project lies a particular model : participatory scientific travel.

In this type of experience, travelers are no longer simple visitors.

They become participants in a scientific or ecological approach.

Depending on the projects, they can :

contribute to participatory science programs
collect scientific data
participate in field actions
experiment with ecological solutions
collaborate with researchers or associations

This model responds to several profound evolutions in society.

Travelers are increasingly seeking experiences that carry meaning.

Participatory Science is developing rapidly.

Educational systems are seeking experiential approaches to illustrate school curricula.

Citizens want to understand ecological challenges and contribute to solutions.

In this context, scientific travel becomes a true open-air educational laboratory.

Education as systemic impact

Terra Scientifica gives particular importance to the notion of systemic impact.

In many environmental fields, resources are mobilized to repair damage : restoring a degraded ecosystem, compensating for pollution or correcting the effects of a human activity.

These actions are necessary, but they often remain emergency reactions meant to extinguish fires started by humans.

Education acts differently : it transforms behaviors, decisions and representations.

By involving pupils, students and citizens in participatory scientific programs, we act on the root causes of problems.

This is why Terra Scientifica develops many collaborations with schools and educational programs.

Travel then becomes educational experiences in which participants do not simply observe.

They become actors of knowledge.

Terra Scientifica as an economic platform

Another aspect of the project is often less visible but just as important.

Terra Scientifica also functions as a space for economic innovation.

The organizers and actors present at the event develop a particular capacity :

identifying emerging economic opportunities very early.

These opportunities often appear at the intersection of several transformations :

responsible tourism
regenerative economy
participatory science
experiential education
ecological transition

For entrepreneurs and investors, this position allows access to markets before they become obvious to the entire sector.

Contrary to a widespread idea, ecological solutions are not necessarily less profitable.

In many cases, they are :

more efficient
less costly
more profitable

Several travel agencies present around Terra Scientifica have also chosen to become mission-driven companies.

These companies now work with :

NGOs
associations
scientists
research centers

to design journeys that produce both ecological impact and economic value.

A platform active all year round

Over time, Terra Scientifica has evolved.

What initially began as an annual event has become a platform active all year round.

Collaborations are created.

Projects are developed.

Partnerships are concluded.

Economic models are structured.

The event simply represents the moment when this entire ecosystem gathers physically.

The four pillars of the fifth edition (2026)

The fifth edition of Terra Scientifica was structured around four main mechanisms.

Citizen committees

They bring together engaged citizens, educators and participants to collectively reflect on solutions to develop.

These spaces allow concrete and applicable ideas to emerge.

Impact business strategic committees

These meetings bring together entrepreneurs, investors and experts to structure economically viable projects.

The objective is to transform ideas into companies capable of developing sustainably.

The scientific travel creation hackathon

The hackathon is one of the most dynamic moments of the event.

For several days, teams design new formats of participatory scientific travel.

Projects must meet several criteria :

scientific rigor
real ecological impact
participant involvement
viable economic model

The results of this edition were particularly impressive.

Several projects now combine science, citizen engagement and entrepreneurial potential.

The Terra Scientifica Fair : village of stands, conferences and experiences

The fourth pillar is the visible and widely open heart of Terra Scientifica : the Fair itself, organized around a large village of stands and a rich program of encounters and experiences.

During several days that conclude the 10 days of events, visitors, professionals, scientists, associations and travel agencies gather in the same space to discover and collectively build new forms of scientific and participatory travel.

The village of stands allows visitors to meet directly :

specialized travel agencies
environmental associations
natural parks
research centers
organizations engaged in participatory science

These encounters allow visitors to imagine their next experiences, understand the scientific projects proposed and build journeys that match their aspirations.

The fair is also punctuated by a program of conferences, film screenings, scientific activities and participatory workshops.

The conferences give the floor to scientists, explorers, educators and entrepreneurs who share their work, discoveries and visions of the future of tourism and participatory science.

Film screenings allow visitors to discover scientific expeditions, ecological initiatives or human experiences carried out in the field.

Activities and workshops offer visitors the possibility to directly experiment with certain scientific approaches : biodiversity observation, exploration of the celestial vault, discovery of technologies used in research programs or introduction to participatory science methods.

The fair thus becomes a space of inspiration, discovery and encounters, where everyone can imagine their own way of traveling differently.

Whether traveling solo, with family, with friends, in an educational or professional setting, Terra Scientifica allows visitors to discover projects that combine adventure, knowledge and commitment to the planet.

This fourth pillar gives the project its full dimension : that of a place where ideas conceived in citizen committees, strategic committees and the hackathon become accessible to the public and can transform into concrete experiences of scientific and participatory travel.

A strengthening dynamic

After seven years of preparation and five editions, Terra Scientifica shows steady progress.

Each year :

new actors join the ecosystem
new projects appear
collaborations take shape
economic models emerge

This growth remains deliberately progressive in order to preserve the scientific quality and the coherence of the project.

But the trajectory is clear.

Terra Scientifica is becoming an international reference in the field of participatory scientific tourism.

Dare, explore, learn, participate, change

Beyond economic or scientific concepts, Terra Scientifica above all proposes a different way of traveling.

Dare to live the adventure of participatory science.

Explore nearby or distant territories while discovering their natural and cultural richness.

Learn while traveling, thanks to scientific experiences accessible to everyone.

Participate in concrete projects that contribute to knowledge and the protection of nature.

Change the way you travel by becoming an actor of the world you discover.

Some experiences proposed within the framework of Terra Scientifica allow, for example :

tracking a population of whales in a non-invasive way
collecting scientific data on glaciers
participating in coral reef restoration
observing animal populations to contribute to their protection
building experimental ecological solutions

These experiences show that it is possible to travel differently.

A collective adventure that continues

When the village of stands of the fifth edition opens its doors, a particular feeling emerges : seeing an old idea become a collective reality.

Terra Scientifica is not only an event, but a movement in construction where researchers, citizens, entrepreneurs, educators and investors meet.

All share a common question :§

How can tourism be transformed into a lever for knowledge, ecological regeneration and economic prosperity ?

The answers continue to emerge, and they will continue to be built through the editions.

To discover the projects, experiences and scientific journeys offered :

https://terra-scientifica.com

Financing the resolution of symptoms or the source?

Thomas EGLI — 2026-02-20T05:03:18Z

Why does financing problem-solving at the source generate better revenue? (see below)
How can we transform the emotional and financial momentum generated by urgency into leverage capable of durably modifying the deep mechanisms of a system?

These questions, seemingly simple, are in fact at the heart of any credible impact strategy. They require looking beyond the obvious, moving past immediate emotion, and questioning the very structure of the problems we claim to solve.

Symptom and source: two layers of the same reality

Most impact challenges unfold on two distinct yet closely connected levels. The first layer is the symptom. It is visible, urgent, tangible. People are suffering here and now. The media take hold of it. Donations flow quickly. Results are measurable, concrete, often spectacular. Yet they frequently remain temporary. They relieve, repair, cushion, but they do not necessarily transform, and often the problem repeats itself cyclically.

The second layer is the source. It is structural, less visible, more complex to explain. This is where the deep mechanisms that sustain the problem reside: misaligned economic incentives, governance failures, dysfunctional markets, absent infrastructure, non-existent or inadequate business models, lack of educational components for both future adults and societal actors, even though these are at the origin of everything else. This layer is less media-friendly, less immediate, more difficult to finance. Yet it is at this level that the game truly changes.

Let us take a simple example. The symptom may consist of episodes of coastal pollution, followed by emergency clean-up operations. The action is necessary, urgent, visible. But the source lies elsewhere: absence of local waste management systems, lack of economic incentives, insufficient monitoring and enforcement of rules, non-existent business models making prevention profitable. The paradox is clear: the symptom mobilizes, the source transforms.

Operational urgency and systemic impact

From the perspective of project leaders, daily reality is often one of urgency. Teams face critical situations, fragile funding, and constant operational overload. "We must act now" is not a marketing slogan; it is a lived necessity. This urgency is legitimate. It justifies immediate action.

But when a project remains exclusively at the symptom level, it locks itself into chronic dependence on subsidies. It remains undersized. Its results are capped. It acts, but does not change the architecture of the problem. Systemic impact, on the other hand, requires a more ambitious construction. It involves transforming partial solutions into structured services, standards, replicable processes, governance mechanisms. It requires solid evidence, the ability to demonstrate what works and what does not. And ultimately, it requires an economic model capable of growing without constantly begging.

A simple rule can be formulated: action on the symptom provides legitimacy and traction. Action on the source brings durability, scale, and strategic power.

Philanthropy: emotion mobilizes, structure transforms

Philanthropy is naturally drawn to symptomatic causes. They are emotionally powerful, easy to tell, immediately morally rewarding. They offer quick, visible, reassuring returns. Yet a profound shift is underway. More and more actors are seeking impact-driven philanthropy: measurable results, leverage effects, clear accountability, lasting change. "Don't just treat but fix it" is becoming an increasing demand.

Structuring part of the effort to transform at the source of the problem will build loyalty among donors initially engaged through urgency.

The challenge lies in the fact that source-oriented work and projects are less “fundraising-friendly.” They are less spectacular, less photogenic, more technical. The winning strategy therefore consists of using the urgency of the symptom as a mobilization driver, then deliberately structuring part of the effort to finance the transformation of the source. Ultimately, this will build donor loyalty. An effective philanthropic architecture thus combines rapid-response funding to act immediately, design and proof funding to build governance, evidence, and standards, and catalytic capital aimed at initiating what can become investable and scalable. Urgency then ceases to be a repetitive loop; it becomes a gateway to systemic transformation.

Investment: when the source creates the market

From the investors' perspective, the question often arises: where is the revenue? The answer lies precisely in the source layer. Structural solutions change the way a system functions. And when a system changes, new markets emerge, new business models appear.

Addressing causes at their source is more attractive in terms of return on investment.

This is why the source layer is not only “more impactful”; it is often more investable. It gives rise to services for which institutions are willing to pay, operational platforms to which operators subscribe, training and certification models, data production and monitoring mechanisms, quality and compliance standards, deployment and maintenance contracts, replicable formats generating measurable results. Where financing the symptom produces one-off results, financing the source creates recurring revenues, while also generating ecological, social, and intellectual value.

Thus, the search for the root cause is not merely a moral preference. Properly structured, it becomes a driver of sustainable profitability.

Combining the two levels: an architectural strategy

The most robust strategy does not consist of choosing between symptom and source. It consists of intentionally combining them. One starts with the symptom, because it mobilizes partners, citizens, and initial funding. It is then translated into a roadmap toward the source, where scale becomes possible. Then a bankable architecture is built: clear governance, solid evidence, an understandable economic model indicating who pays and why, an identified deployment mechanism, an explicit replication logic.

It is precisely within this logic that differentiated yet complementary roles emerge. The Geneva Forum, for example, supports the emergence of projects, stakeholder alignment, and the structuring of initial conceptual phases. The Geneva Foundation for the Future intervenes to consolidate investable structuring, and its AGILE impact finance tool ensures mission alignment and opens pathways toward return and resilience. The transition thus takes place from emotion to execution, from urgency to industry.

Taking action: from observer to strategic actor

For those who wish to move from observing impact to capturing opportunities, several entry points are available. Project leaders can translate their initiative from the symptom register to that of the source, clarify their offering, define what must be proven, identify who will pay and for what value, design a credible path toward scale. Philanthropists can use their capital to unlock systemic change, finance both urgent action and the architecture that will make it sustainable, become catalytic rather than merely reparative. Investors, banks, and family offices can position themselves upstream, at the structuring stage, where value is still being created, with readable governance, evidence under construction, and clear trajectories.

Ultimately, the initial question remains: are we financing the symptom or the source? The most fruitful answer is neither exclusive nor naïve. It consists of using the mobilizing power of the symptom to pave the way for transforming the source. This is where impact ceases to be a one-off act and becomes a structural dynamic. This is where urgency turns into strategy.

When Profit Regains Meaning: Entrepreneurship in Service of Life, Towards a Regenerative and Committed Economy – Where Everyone Wins

Thomas EGLI — 2026-02-08T16:18:03Z

For Committed Entrepreneurship?

Looking Back on Over 30 Years in the Field of Impact-Driven Business and Business Creation

Thirty years have passed since my first steps into the complex world of committed entrepreneurship. Thirty years of bringing projects to life where others saw structural dependency on subsidies, where lack of profitability seemed inevitable. And yet: making impact profitable, disruption viable, cooperation desirable... it's possible. Perhaps it started as a strong belief that fueled me, but today it is a proven knowledge, validated daily in the field.
This proven know-how has evolved into a model. It is now shared through platforms like the Geneva Forum and the Geneva Foundation for the Future, where agents of subtle yet decisive transformation come together. And what we experience there leads me to say that doing business differently is not only desirable—it has become strategic.

A Gentle Yet Radical Revolution


Read the book

Nature never imposes. It infuses. Over time, it shapes the most efficient forms of organization. For 3.5 billion years, it has shown its capacity to evolve continually—never going bankrupt.
Today's entrepreneurship, if it wants to weather the storm, must draw inspiration from that resilience. To be deeply rooted and yet flexible in form. The world is changing, and in this transformation, the entrepreneur is no longer just a market builder, but an ecosystem craftsman. A quiet agent of deep transition, weaving new meaningful connections between humans and their environment.
Choosing to undertake for the common good is now both a bold and smart act. It does not reject profit, but restores its meaning. It shifts from exploitation to partnership, from short-term gains to long-term fertility. And in that shift, everyone wins.

Genesis of a New Kind of Entrepreneur

Inspired by life itself, this new type of entrepreneur emerging in recent years doesn't need to force cooperation—it understands that interdependence is a strength, and certainly not a weakness to be looked down upon! They study the forest to guide their alliances, the cell in the human body to structure their organization, the ecosystem to imagine their business model and growth.
Their organization is not fixed: it is totipotent, like certain cells that can specialize without losing their integrity. They cultivate simplicity without losing depth. They are both many and one. In truth, they are not on the fringes of the economy—they are the emergence of the new economy that will replace the old one.

The Foundational Dimensions of Committed Entrepreneurship

Committed entrepreneurship spreads like a mycorrhizal network: each fiber carries meaning, purpose, responsibility. It's no longer about growing for growth's sake, but about creating to connect, repair, and strengthen.
It embraces social responsibility, is rooted in environmental sustainability, and grounded in a clear business ethic. It dares social innovation while upholding inclusion, diversity, and justice as its pillars.
It seeks to share value, not capture it. It strengthens communities, contributes to health, education, fair employment, and the eradication of poverty. It is transparent, collaborative, and inherently circular.
It leverages technology, but places it in service of good. It works to reduce inequality, care for its people, and reinforce collective resilience. Each dimension is not a constraint but an opportunity to build more justly, more fruitfully, more powerfully.

Virtuous Circles and Fertile Hybridization

When a business meets a nonprofit, it's not a culture clash—it's often an alchemy. One brings strategic agility, the other deep purpose. Together, they create hybrid forms: new kinds of cooperatives, social incubators, solidarity finance networks supporting the boldest projects.
Yes, an NGO can franchise. Yes, an association can innovate. Yes, a citizen project can become a business—not by losing its soul, but by expanding it further.

An Entrepreneurial Dynamic Within Nonprofits? Yes—And It's Necessary.

The nonprofit world is a reservoir of initiatives, intuition, and meaning. But to last, to have impact, it also needs entrepreneurial energy.
Breaking down silos, daring to innovate, testing business models without betraying the mission: it's possible.
And when a nonprofit team starts thinking like a startup—without losing its compass or its heart—it becomes irresistible. What we've seen on the ground, in dozens of organizations, is that a collective project rooted in impact becomes stronger, more credible, more contagious.

Hard Values, Soft Values: Toward a Craft of Meaning

In this new economy, rigor does not oppose gentleness. Quite the contrary. It takes surgical precision to build a viable impact model, and boundless empathy to truly serve the living.
The committed entrepreneurs I know are demanding—with themselves, with their vision. They cultivate lifelong learning, redefine success by real usefulness, not just growth.
They learn from life not to dominate, but to interact. They know that power is not seized—it is shared. That ambition is beautiful when rooted in service. That complexity is not an enemy, but a web in which to inscribe their actions.

The Fruitfulness of Science and Ecology to Reinvent the Economy

Nature is a tireless researcher. It has invented sustainable agricultural systems, efficient energy flows, and waste-free cycles. Agroecology, clean energy, geothermal power, biomimicry are not green utopias—they are fields of high-potential entrepreneurship.
By drawing inspiration from life, we develop regenerative technologies. We reinvent usage, reduce impact, and restore what we have damaged. The circular economy is no longer theory—it is practice, jobs, wealth.

What People Stand to Gain

People gain stable, dignified, meaningful jobs. They gain access to essential goods and services. They gain autonomy, security, and recognition.
But above all, they regain something invaluable: the capacity to act. To feel like an agent in their life, their future, their community. That is priceless.

An Economy Inspired by Life to Create Greater Wealth

The companies of tomorrow will be complex adaptive systems. They breathe, interact, adjust. They are intelligent and sensory: they listen, feel, respond.
They engage in continuous learning—not just to optimize processes, but to refine their place within the ecosystem. This kind of organizational learning becomes the true competitive advantage. Sustainable profits arise from a right relationship with the world.

A Humble Yet Vital Commitment

It's not about saving the world. It's about finding our rightful place within it. Meeting complexity with humility. With the simple joy of contributing.
Letting go is not giving up. It's trusting what is greater than oneself: evolution, life. But staying the course—toward meaning, care, and service.
Daring to do business the way we tend to living systems. With patience, attention, and love. Knowing that true wealth is not what we accumulate, but what we regenerate.

2025 : A Look Back at 33 Years of Co-Constructing Participatory Research

Thomas EGLI — 2025-10-17T15:14:37Z

After three years spent in 2022, 2023, and 2024 selecting participatory research projects on behalf of the French National Research Agency (ANR)—including two years as co‑chair of the evaluation committee—for the SAPS RP call for projects, I attended the conference “Citizen Engagement in Science” organized by the Senate and the ANR on October 17, 2025, at the Palais du Luxembourg in Paris.

This one‑day event, devoted to reviewing the “Science With and For Society (SAPS)” program through which we allocated €14 million to 123 Action Research / Participatory Research projects, is today for me an opportunity to look back over thirty‑three years devoted to the creation and development of Participatory Research, from its first experiments to its current institutional recognition.

33 years of a pioneering trajectory

I take advantage of this in‑depth article to retrace the milestones that have marked these 33 years spent developing Participatory Research.

1992 – Launch of the first scientific investigations conceived, scaled, and carried out by adolescents, without initial intervention by researchers, in close partnership with academic research (the INRAE laboratory in Thonon‑les‑Bains): a native, citizen approach to research designed and led by 17‑year‑olds, which marked the birth of Participatory Research by and for youth.

1998 – The French Embassy in Japan commissioned me to export French expertise in science education to Japan.

2000 – Following that project, the French Ambassador in Japan issued a very explicit challenge: make the field of science education by practice economically viable, convert volunteers into sustainable jobs, and transform subsidized projects into autonomous programs. At that time, we were still before the emergence of degrees in the fields of culture and scientific mediation, and the CCSTI concept was still in its infancy, with its first circulars being drafted.

2001–2004 – Challenge met: in a few years, a wholly original and specific model emerged, capable of financing participatory research through citizen engagement itself, combining science education, socio‑cultural animation, travel, and popular education, around real research undertaken by non‑scientists with scientific supervision. Scientists were no longer demonstrators; we were no longer in communication and dissemination—rather they became guides who build capacity among children, adolescents, and non‑scientist adults, enabling them to learn Research by doing Research, from the age of 7.

2005 – Pivotal year: Objectif Sciences International (OSI) deployed at large scale the real research concept within scientific residencies, the famous pilot year, disrupting the academic landscape. Given the scale of the experiment, the Ministry of Research inquired about the length of runway nearest the residence center so that the Minister might visit it in person… before retracting, so disruptive was the model to the usual research frameworks. What followed were several years of evolution in the legitimacy and recognition of the idea.

2015–2016 – Ten years later, OSI actively participated in drafting the French Charter of Citizen Science following the Houiller Report, insisting in particular on the importance of the terms “sciences participatives” and “recherche participative” across different levels of involvement within Citizen Science—marking a major semantic and political advance. The Charter was signed in 2016. In that respect, after my 3 years serving on the ANR selection committee for the Participatory Research call, I published on the OSI NGO website this clarification and guidance page on what distinguishes Citizen Science, Participatory Science, and Participatory Research.

2021–2024 – A further ten years on, the ANR for the first time dedicates a national funding program specifically for Participatory Research through the SAPS – Science With and For Society call, symbolically closing a thirty‑year cycle of evolution—from citizen experimentation to public institutionalization. At the same time in Switzerland, we drafted the Swiss Charter for Citizen Science, and I had the pleasure of seeing other forms of implementation and epistemological values, much more bottom-up—but that is for another article…

2025 – Organization of 2 official side events within the UN Ocean Conference in Nice, on Participatory Sciences for the Ocean: Review of the Hackathon on Participatory Sciences for the Ocean.

To go straight to the heart of the matter, this morning I focused on these key aspects of Participatory Science.

Social and Democratic Value

Participatory research today embodies a major cultural transformation: that of a science which no longer isolates itself, but opens, listens, anchors, and addresses society in all its diversity. Not to be accepted in principle, but through real mutual understanding.
It restores the collective dimension to knowledge and a social purpose to research. Where science sometimes sheltered behind institutions, it becomes again a common good—accessible, shared, and co‑produced.

By enabling citizens, associations, territories, users, and economic and social actors to co‑build research questions, this approach reconnects knowledge with lived reality.
It legitimizes research in the eyes of the public, strengthens democratic dialogue, and allows scientific effort to better orient itself toward concrete societal needs.

Production of Useful and Actionable Knowledge

Truly living science does not limit itself to producing results, but to the transformation it causes.
Participatory research offers a concrete path to bring the lab closer to the field, the usage model closer to experience, abstraction closer to reality.
Problems emerge from actors themselves—communities, citizens, teachers, farmers, engineers, residents—and the results that follow are more operational, better understood, more rooted in reality.

This approach pursues a simple intuition: co‑constructed research is more likely to be useful—and hence sustainable.
It redefines the relation between knowledge production and meaning production, between experimentation and appropriation.

Strengthening Citizen Engagement and Trust

At a time when distrust threatens the link between science and society, citizen participation acts as an antidote.
By sharing protocols, explaining methods, and involving the public in decision processes, participatory research restores trust and transparency.
It shows that science is not power, but shared responsibility—that it does not only seek understanding, but also to serve.

This mode of knowledge production values academic freedom while reinforcing the social responsibility of research. It helps rebuild a trusted community around truth in a world saturated with fragmented information and competing beliefs.

Enriching Perspectives and Knowledge

Opening to non‑researchers enriches research with a diversity of viewpoints and experiences.

Local knowledge, professional practices, daily observations complement the researcher's analytical logic.
Far from weakening scientific rigor, this hybridization strengthens it: it multiplies vantage points, tests hypotheses, refines models.

For scientists from industrial, academic, or public backgrounds, this citizen approach added to these historical dimensions of research can embody a form of collective intelligence: one that makes disciplines, cultures, and generations converse to produce genuinely transformative knowledge.

Territorialization, Inclusion, and Reducing Inequalities

Participatory research is not only a scientific tool; it is also a lever for territorial justice.
It gives voice to peripheral spaces, to communities often invisible in research policies, and allows their realities to be integrated into knowledge production.
Thus, science ceases to be an institutional monopoly and becomes a network of shared experiences, where each territory contributes to global knowledge.

This approach encourages inclusion, context diversity, and recognition of knowledges long considered marginal. It helps reduce inequalities between territories, sectors, and populations by giving everyone the opportunity to become an actor in research.

Initial Challenges and Realized Transformations

Participatory research had to face several challenges to take hold: scientific rigor, cost, governance, scale, impact measurement, academic recognition.
But each of these obstacles paved the way for innovative solutions—often more robust than classical models, or highly complementary to them.

Scientific Rigor and Methodological Requirements

For a long time, citizen participation was suspected of introducing noise in data, compromising rigor or reproducibility.
However, many studies now show that data generated through participation are often of quality equal to, or even superior to, conventional data.
Citizens tend to over-check their measurements, self‑censor when uncertain, and adhere carefully to protocols—especially when led by scientifically trained facilitators.

Consortia like Terra Forma in citizen metrology now develop shared protocols and open-source calibration tools allowing citizen data to be integrated into scientific publications and public decision models.
Researchers themselves now train in “data trust management,” ushering in a new era in which rigor and participation coexist.

Cost, Logistics, Time, and Resources

Implementing a participatory project requires time, coordination, training, mediators, and adapted infrastructure.
But these investments have gradually been rationalized.
Shared platforms, hybrid financing devices tapping into domains that already have funding sources, and co-valorization logics (public-private-citizen) today make these models viable.

Objectif Sciences International (OSI) was a pioneer of this economic viability.
As early as the 2000s, the organization showed it was possible to finance research via participatory experience—transforming scientific pedagogy into a self-sustaining socio-economic model, creating lasting jobs and capable of supporting long-term Participatory Science Programs.

Governance, Power, and Responsibilities

Involving society also means rethinking the governance of research.
Who defines the scientific question? Who owns the data? Who publishes, who decides, who benefits?
These issues, once seen as obstacles, are now framed by proven solutions and varied models.

Co-construction charters of research define rights and duties for each actor.
Mixed consortia—researchers, associations, local entities—operate under equitable partnership contracts.
Open platforms (Open Science Data) ensure traceability, transparency, and reciprocity of contributions.
Thus, participatory research does not dilute scientific responsibility—it redistributes it consciously and transparently.

Scale and Mass Effects

Moving from local project to national or European policy long seemed out of reach.
Today, thanks to the gradual structuring of the field, scaling up becomes possible.
Networks like EU‑Citizen‑Science, national platforms, and programs like the ANR's SAPS show that it is possible to articulate local and global without losing the participatory spirit.
Pooling tools, standardizing protocols, and training researchers in co‑design now make it possible to scale while preserving authenticity.

Impact Measurement and Valorization

The value of participatory research is not measured solely by publications, but also by social, ecological, and economic transformations.
Yet evaluation frameworks are evolving: social impact indicators, institutional recognition, participation and public dissemination criteria.

This year, the Annual International Conference on Citizen and Participatory Sciences for Peace and Sustainable Development, organized as part of the 17ᵗʰ Geneva Forum at the UN, is dedicating its work precisely to this question:
“How to evaluate the real, detailed, immediate or systemic impact of citizen contribution to global scientific production” and thereby help its recognition in research policy. Answers are gradually emerging, outlining the contours of a new knowledge economy—more inclusive and measurable.

Risk of Dilution or Drift

Every opening comes with a risk of dispersion.
But accumulated experience shows that it is possible to channel this diversity without constraining it.
Participatory prioritization frameworks, mixed juries, and scientific debate platforms allow topic hierarchy while respecting free expression, involving people and therefore building capacity.
Far from weakening fundamental research, citizen participation feeds it with new, often unexpected hypotheses, and helps expand the field of discovery.

Support Structures and Institutional Framework

Institutionalization of participatory research is now well underway.
Dedicated funding tools, such as SAPS or Horizon Europe – SwafS calls, support co-construction of science.
Training programs introduce researchers and field actors to participatory methodologies.
National and regional networks share tools, frameworks, experiences and resources to strengthen the coherence of the movement.

Academic Recognition

Institutional recognition is progressing.
More and more doctoral schools integrate participatory methods into their curricula.
Scientific journals now accept publications stemming from co‑constructed approaches. The NGO Objectif Sciences International has even initiated several papers where children, adolescents, or non‑scientist adults are authors in peer‑reviewed specialist journals (whether for discovering species presence, naming craters on Mars, or monitoring the Snow Leopard).
Researchers are encouraged to highlight citizen participation in their evaluations, CVs, projects, and international collaborations.
A new kind of excellence is taking shape: that of shared science.

Guarantees of Rigor and Ethics

Trust is earned by rigor.
Participatory research protocols are now accompanied by precise ethical rules: informed consent, data transparency, cross-validation, co‑evaluation by involved actors, manual verification of procedures, co-definition and updating of protocols and research questions...
These guarantees ensure scientific quality while respecting the human dimension of the process.

Mixing Fundamental and Applied Research

Participatory research does not replace fundamental research—it complements it.
In fields like ecology, public health, archaeology, heritage, social sciences, or climatology, it opens new horizons of collection and interpretation.
In more theoretical or highly technical domains, it offers a mediation and dissemination lever, while cutting-edge experiments can involve non‑scientist publics of all ages.
It is the complementarity between pioneering research and field research that strengthens the scientific system today.

Territorial Policy and Inclusion

Participatory devices are powerful levers of inclusion.
They ensure that rural territories, remote regions, and underrepresented populations gain access to the same knowledge opportunities.
They encourage locally anchored projects linked to national and international dynamics.
Participation becomes a universal scientific right.

Dialogue and Consultation

Finally, the future of participatory research depends on concertation.
It is no longer enough to listen to society; we must invite it to participate in defining research priorities.
Citizens are no longer mere beneficiaries: they become partners, co-authors, co‑decision‑makers.
When dialogue is sincere and well supported, it elevates both science and democracy.

A Constructive and Complementary Vision

In the end, all things considered, participatory research does not oppose fundamental research.
It complements it, extends it, and grounds it.
In domains where technicality makes direct participation difficult, it opens other paths: mediation, popularization, contributive observation, weak signal collection.
Far from cannibalizing funds, it attracts new resources by diversifying economic circuits and increasing research's social legitimacy.

Thus this is not a shift in the scientific center of gravity, but an expansion of the knowledge sphere.
A science that remains demanding, yet becomes shared.
A science that no longer confines itself to describing the world, but helps transform it together with those who live in it.

Impact Diplomacy, in the continuation of Scientific Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy

Thomas EGLI — 2025-07-16T10:21:07Z

Thomas EGLI, published on Wednesday, July 16, 2025.

I. Introduction

1. Context and Issues

Over the past decades, the international community has faced an unprecedented rise in global challenges: biodiversity collapse, climate disruption, growing socio-economic inequalities, and cross-border geopolitical tensions (Gupta et al., 2020). These issues, embedded in the United Nations' 2030 Agenda, call for more agile and inclusive mechanisms of global cooperation than those offered by traditional diplomatic approaches. Yet, despite the progress of Scientific Diplomacy — which mobilizes research and scientific expertise to enhance dialogue between states — and Cultural Diplomacy — which relies on cultural exchanges to strengthen dialogue and mutual trust — the results often remain insufficient given the urgency and complexity of current crises (Nye, 2004; Stone, 2019).

2. Definition of “Impact Diplomacy”

“Impact Diplomacy” aims to go beyond these limitations by placing the pursuit of measurable socio-ecological benefits at the core of international negotiations. It is structured around four fundamental pillars:

Transparency, through common, public, and harmonized evaluation criteria, allowing for clear monitoring and accountability of stakeholders (Turekian, 2014).
Inclusion, via the participatory integration of governments, civil society, the private sector, and local communities, to ensure the legitimacy and sustainability of commitments (Gagnon, 2021).
Measurability, through precise, verifiable indicators aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals, ensuring rigorous assessment of actual impacts (SDG Impact Standards, 2022).
Shared and Joint Intention, aiming to go beyond mere corporate social responsibility (CSR) — or worse, compensation — to establish natively regenerative and resilient systems, based on long-term co-responsibility among stakeholders (Ostrom, 1990; Steffen et al., 2018).

Through this focus on structural rather than circumstantial positive impact, Impact Diplomacy complements and extends Scientific Diplomacy, which centers on knowledge sharing, and Cultural Diplomacy, which is based on symbolic influence, by introducing a new operational and normative dimension (Stone, 2019).

3. Objectives of the Article

This article has three main objectives:

To map the concept of Impact Diplomacy by situating it within the historical evolution of “soft” diplomacies and its grounding in public international law;
To establish a rigorous theoretical and methodological framework, based on a systemic approach and positive ecology, to guide the operational implementation of this diplomacy;
To illustrate, through concrete case studies (multilateral initiatives, financing platforms, cross-border negotiations), the added value of this approach in addressing contemporary global challenges.

By laying the foundation for interdisciplinary research, the article seeks to promote an innovative diplomacy, capable of transforming capital and competencies into levers for planetary regeneration rather than mere tools of competition.

II. Historical and Legal Framework

1. Origins and Evolution of Forms of “Soft Diplomacy”

The concept of Scientific Diplomacy (“Science Diplomacy”) has its roots in the informal scholarly exchanges of the 17th and 18th centuries: salons, royal academies (the Royal Society in London from 1660, the Académie des sciences in Paris in 1666), and epistolary correspondence among European scholars (Pardo & Prakash, 2017). As the nation-state took shape, these “non-governmental” networks were gradually co-opted by governments, notably with the creation of the International Council for Science (ICSU) in 1931, and later UNESCO in 1945, to serve as transnational channels of dialogue during times of tension (Pardo & Prakash, 2017).

In parallel, Cultural Diplomacy took form after World War II: initially a tool for moral reconstruction and influence in response to the USSR, it was institutionalized through the Council of Europe's Council of Cultural Cooperation (1954) and various exchange programs (Fulbright, Goethe-Institut, British Council) (Cummings, 2003). These initiatives demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach based on the promotion of heritage, language, and the arts to build trust, promote national image, and foster mutual understanding (Bound et al., 2007).

These two forms of “soft power” have significantly contributed to shaping the field of non-coercive diplomacy. However, their objectives remain focused either on the dissemination of knowledge or symbolic influence: they prove insufficient for orchestrating systemic transformations in ecological, social, and economic matters, where the stakes demand measurable outcomes and long-term operational commitment.

2. International Legal Foundations

The United Nations Charter lays the foundation for multilateralism and cooperation: Article 1 proclaims the objective “to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,” while Article 55 commits states to “promote higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development” (UN Charter, 1945).

On the environmental front, multilateral treaties constitute an essential foundation:

Montreal Protocol (1987) on substances that deplete the ozone layer;
Kyoto Protocol (1997), with its Clean Development Mechanism, introducing tradable emissions quotas;
Paris Agreement (2015), articulating national contributions (NDCs) and an iterative review process to keep temperature rise well below 2°C (UNFCCC, 2015).
More recently, the 3rd UN Ocean Conference, held in Nice in June 2025, inaugurated a novel collaborative approach: it was preceded by a full week of global scientific congress bringing together over 2,000 researchers. These experts co-developed, ahead of the diplomatic roundtable, a set of operational recommendations that then structured the official negotiations and the UN action plan for ocean protection and regeneration.

These instruments reveal the emergence of an environmental “soft law,” where voluntary commitments, performance indicators, and transparency mechanisms are layered over traditional treaty practices. Sustainable development, formalized as early as 1987 in the Brundtland Report, expanded the scope of collective action to include social and economic dimensions, establishing the principle of shared responsibility (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).

In public international law, Impact Diplomacy naturally fits into this dynamic: it draws on the principles of peaceful cooperation (UN Charter, Art. 2) and the duty not to cause transboundary harm (the “no harm” principle, ICJ, Pulp Mills case, 2010). It thus aligns with models of global governance based on the creation of flexible norms, transparency, and accountability (Rischard, 2002).

3. Positioning of Impact Diplomacy

Impact Diplomacy establishes itself as a new modality of operationalized “soft power,” centered on four pillars (transparency, inclusion, measurability, and shared intention) that go beyond the logic of mere corporate social responsibility (CSR) or compensation (Greenwashing).

Structured soft law: it relies on the development of common standards (impact standards, green taxonomies) and independent verification protocols, while maintaining the flexibility needed for innovation and adaptation to local contexts (SDG Impact Standards, 2022).
Public-private-community convergence: through participatory inclusion, it redefines the roles of NGOs, investors, and local communities, breaking with the “State vs. Market” antagonism to establish co-constructed partnerships (Ostrom, 1990).
Regenerative and resilient objective: the shared intention frames cooperation in a forward-looking register, aiming not only at preservation but also active ecosystem restoration and the strengthening of social fabric, in contrast to a compensatory vision limited to neutralizing pollution or degradation (Steffen et al., 2018).

In this way, Impact Diplomacy emerges as an unexplored continuum between scientific diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, and economic diplomacy, offering a legal and institutional framework capable of uniting actors around measurable objectives and a shared vision of planetary regeneration.

III. Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations

1. From Soft Power to Impact Power

The concept of soft power, popularized by Joseph Nye, refers to a state's ability to achieve its international objectives through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion or direct economic incentives (Nye, 2004). Science diplomacy is one of its manifestations: it leverages scientific collaboration to strengthen cooperation between states and build bridges even during crises (Pardo & Prakash, 2017). Cultural diplomacy, for its part, uses cultural and artistic exchanges to promote shared values and build trust (Cummings, 2003). Impact Power, as proposed here, follows in the footsteps of these soft approaches but introduces a new requirement: the production of tangible and measurable socio-ecological results, validated through shared criteria.

2. Systemic Approach and Positive Ecology

Impact Diplomacy is based on a systemic vision, in which environmental, social, and economic challenges are viewed as interdependent components of a single planetary ecosystem. Rather than succumbing to eco-anxiety, it promotes a positive ecology, a concept that emphasizes creativity, innovation, and pragmatic optimism to turn crises into opportunities for regeneration (Clayton & Manning, 2018). This approach draws in particular on the work of Steffen et al. (2018) on Earth system trajectories, which highlight the need to move from mere risk management to the active construction of resilient and abundant systems.

3. Key Principles of Impact Diplomacy

The added value of Impact Diplomacy lies in the combination of four complementary pillars:

Transparency, through the development and publication of common standards (impact standards, taxonomies) and independent verification processes, to prevent greenwashing and ensure mutual trust (SDG Impact Standards, 2022).
Inclusion, by ensuring the participation of all stakeholders: states, international organizations, local authorities, private actors, and local communities. This multi-stakeholder governance is inspired by Ostrom's principles of collective action (1990) to prevent conflicts and strengthen decision-making legitimacy.
Measurability, through precise, quantifiable indicators aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), allowing for rigorous monitoring and transparent accountability (UN, 2015).
Shared and joint intention, which goes beyond mere social responsibility (CSR) or compensatory logic, aiming to implement regenerative and resilient systems at the source. Stakeholders commit together, contractually and culturally, to creating durable and positive impacts, rather than compensating after the fact for their negative externalities (Steffen et al., 2018).

These principles form a novel conceptual and operational foundation, positioning Impact Diplomacy as a lever for structural transformation in international relations, where effectiveness is no longer measured solely in terms of influence or reputation, but in terms of concrete and documented benefit for the planet and its inhabitants.

IV. Thematic Axes of Impact Diplomacy

1. Biodiversity

The biodiversity crisis threatens essential ecosystem services (pollination, water purification, climate regulation) and directly affects more than one-third of the global population (IPBES, 2019). Impact Diplomacy mobilizes international negotiations around joint financing mechanisms and shared governance:

Transboundary ecological corridors: the Europe-Africa Green Connectivity Alliance brought together in 2024 the environment ministers of seven countries to create migratory corridors for large mammals, under the auspices of the Bonn Convention (CMS, 2024).
Fair financing mechanism: at the 3rd UN Ocean Conference in Nice (June 2025), states adopted a Blue Fund for marine biodiversity worth USD 2 billion, co-financed by the EU, Japan, and several philanthropic foundations, with strict ESG criteria and a scientific committee drawn from the global congress of 2,000 researchers (UN Ocean Conference, 2025).
Public-private-community partnerships: Ghana's “Forest Bonds” initiative brings together:

the Ghanaian government (Ministry of Natural Resources),
the World Bank (IFC),
impact investors (Blue Orchard),
local communities for the restoration of 150,000 ha of tropical forests, with satellite monitoring and transparent audits (World Bank, 2023).

2. Society and Social Cohesion

Rising inequalities and social fragmentation erode political stability and reduce trust in institutions (UN, 2020). Impact Diplomacy aims to build co-constructed responses centered on social cohesion:

Citizen diplomacy for water access: the “Euro-Mediterranean” project brings together Italian local governments, Tunisian NGOs, and European donors to install 200 purification stations in the Sahel, co-financed by the EIB and the Gates Foundation, with a mixed local council governed on an equal basis (EU Water Diplomacy Report, 2024).
“Schools for Peace” initiative in the Middle East: launched in 2023 by UNESCO and the Aga Khan Foundation, it brings together Jordanian and Palestinian governments, educational NGOs, and private donors to create 50 bilingual schools (Arabic/English) integrating cultural mediation and youth leadership modules (UNESCO, 2023).
Inclusive micro-financing: Grameen-USA and the Malian government negotiated in 2022 a multilateral partnership to extend microcredit to rural women through a blockchain platform, ensuring fund traceability and community participation in lending decisions (GIIN, 2021).

3. Peace and Security

Conflict prevention and the consolidation of lasting peace rely on a diplomacy that is non-militarized but operational:

Multilateral preventive diplomacy: the Geneva Centre for Conflict Prevention has organized since 2021 crisis simulation exercises (Cybersecurity, water access) involving armed forces, humanitarian NGOs, and climate experts, resulting in rapid response protocols validated by the UN Security Council (Bellamy, 2015).
Abuja Protocol III (2017): following inclusive negotiations led by ECOWAS and the African Union, a framework agreement was signed for the joint management of mining resources in the Sahel, with a multi-stakeholder arbitration mechanism and a post-conflict reconstruction fund (ECOWAS, 2018).
Blue-White-Red Peace Coalition: a Franco-Canadian initiative launched in 2024 to train 5,000 civil mediators from conflict zones (Lake Chad, Balkans) in intercultural dialogue and restorative justice techniques, funded by the French Development Agency and Global Affairs Canada (AFD, 2024).

4. Sustainable Development and Positive Financialization

Traditional finance, focused on short-term profit, must be redefined to fund projects with high societal and ecological impact:

Impact investment: the GIIN reports a +30% increase in capital flows to impact funds between 2021 and 2024, with hybrid instruments (blended finance) co-designed by the World Bank and local NGOs for the energy transition in Southeast Asia (GIIN, 2021).
AGILE negotiation platforms: the Geneva Foundation for the Future deployed the AGILE tool in 2025, enabling 50 states, 20 development banks, and 100 foundations to co-negotiate green bonds in real time based on shared impact criteria, accelerating the raising of USD 5 billion for coastal resilience (Geneva Foundation, 2025).
Strategic philanthropy: the Rockefeller Foundation and the Merieux Foundation signed a protocol in 2023 to fund mobile community health clinics in Latin America, with KPIs defined for reducing maternal mortality and ensuring equitable access to healthcare (Rockefeller, 2023).

5. The Question of Borders

Transboundary challenges (climate change, migration flows, pollution) require rethinking the concept of borders:

Green borders: the 2022 Franco-Spanish agreement on joint management of Alpine regions established an “ecological passport” to facilitate mobility of forest rangers and data sharing on wildfires and snowfall (Ministries of the Environment, 2022).
Arctic governance: under the aegis of the Arctic Council, Impact Diplomacy enabled the 2024 conclusion of a protocol on research vessels, harmonizing discharge standards and operational procedures to protect fragile ecosystems (Arctic Council, 2024).
Digital borders: the UN's “Data for Good” initiative (2023) brings together states, tech giants, and start-ups to create a decentralized blockchain registry of cross-border climate data, ensuring its interoperability and free access for research and civic action (UN Global Pulse, 2023).

Case Study: Plan Bleu Mediterranean (UNEP/MAP)

The Plan Bleu Mediterranean, a regional institute of UNEP/MAP created in 1977 under the Barcelona Convention, perfectly illustrates the emergence of Science Diplomacy applied to the preservation of a maritime basin divided among twenty-two states and territories. Initially, its work focused on collecting scientific data and developing foresight scenarios to measure and compensate for the impact of human activities (water quality, coastal erosion, overfishing), feeding strategies for corporate social responsibility (CSR) and compensation mechanisms through national action plans (UNEP/MAP – Plan Bleu, 2020). For example, the report State of the Environment and Development in the Mediterranean (2019) served as a reference for launching seagrass restoration projects funded through public-private partnerships (UNEP/MAP, 2019).

However, faced with the urgency of accelerating degradation and the inadequacy of mere compensatory measures, the Plan Bleu is now well-positioned to evolve toward true Impact Diplomacy:

by integrating performance indicators aligned with the SDGs (SDG 14 – Life Below Water, SDG 13 – Climate Action),
by mobilizing the same scientific committees to co-design regenerative projects (active restoration of seagrass beds, marine biological corridors),
and by bringing together around shared objectives an expanded partnership including Mediterranean NGOs (WWF Mediterranean Initiative), donors, and port authorities, within a transparent and contractual framework.

This transition would allow the Plan Bleu to shift from a logic of “doing less harm” to that of “doing better”, by placing the rigorous measurement of ecological and social impact at the core of its diplomatic negotiations, and serving as a model for other regional bodies facing similar transboundary challenges (Moon, 2007; SDG Impact Standards, 2022).

Each of these axes illustrates the capacity of Impact Diplomacy to unite public and private actors, scientific experts, and local communities around concrete, measurable, and sustainable objectives. The approach not only ensures the resolution of immediate problems but also anchors actions in a dynamic of planetary regeneration and resilience.

V. Tools, Mechanisms, and Actors

1. Instruments and Common Standards

To ensure consistency and comparability of Impact Diplomacy commitments, it is essential to rely on internationally recognized standards and frameworks:

Impact standards aligned with the SDGs: the SDG Impact Standards define environmental and social performance indicators (SDGs 13, 14, 15, 16), accompanied by external verification protocols (SDG Impact Standards, 2022).
ESG Criteria (Environmental, Social, Governance): developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), these are increasingly integrated into public-private financing frameworks and green bonds (GRI, 2023; SASB, 2021).
EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities: implemented in 2020, it establishes a harmonized legal framework to classify a project as “environmentally sustainable” and facilitates convergence between Member States and investors (EU Taxonomy Regulation, 2020).
Impact Investing Label: several rating agencies, including Impak Finance and GIIN, offer labels certifying the quality of impact investment strategies, based on composite scores combining scientific rigor and field-based indicators (GIIN, 2021).

2. Public and Private Actors

Impact Diplomacy relies on a multi-stakeholder coalition, each playing a complementary role:

States and multilateral organizations:
- United Nations (UNEP, UNDP, UNESCO): development of policy frameworks and facilitation of forums such as the UN Ocean Conference (Nice 2025), preceded by the global scientific congress.
- European Union: funding (Connecting Europe Facility, Just Transition Fund) and regulatory support (Green Deal, Taxonomy) (European Commission, 2021).
- Local governments: cross-border regions (Pyrenees-Mediterranean Euroregion), committed metropolitan areas (C40 Cities, 2022) piloting green mobility, water management, and ecological corridors.
Private sector and impact investors:
- Development banks (EIB, ADB, IFC) offering credit lines conditional on environmental and social KPIs (World Bank, 2023).
- Philanthropic foundations (Gates, Rockefeller, Bloomberg) funding innovative initiatives, from satellite forest monitoring to community telemedicine.
- Civil society and local communities: NGOs (WWF, Oxfam), Indigenous movements (Indigenous Environmental Network), cooperatives, and village councils providing local legitimacy and co-construction of projects (Ostrom, 1990).

3. Impact Diplomacy Platforms and Hubs

Networking and coordination rely on diplomatic hubs and collaborative tools:

Geneva Foundation for the Future (AGILE): a physical and digital platform for collaboration and alignment between Impact Finance, Impact Philanthropy, and Impact Projects (green and blue bonds, NGO-oriented private equity...), bringing together states, development banks, foundations, and investors to co-define impact criteria, monitor commitments in real time, and organize regular multilateral negotiation sessions on concrete and pragmatic topics.
Plan Bleu Mediterranean (UNEP/MAP): an example of Science Diplomacy that has evolved into a laboratory of Impact Diplomacy, where researchers and regional policymakers co-develop marine restoration projects with SDG-aligned indicators (UNEP/MAP, 2019).
UN Global Pulse “Data for Good”: a decentralized blockchain registry of climate and social data, shared among states and research institutions to inform negotiations and ensure transparent data access (UN Global Pulse, 2023).
International Network of Conflict Prevention Centers: hubs in Geneva, Nairobi, and Shanghai organizing simulation exercises (cyber, water, migration) and formalizing rapid response protocols validated by the Security Council (Bellamy, 2015).

Through these diverse instruments, mechanisms, and actors, Impact Diplomacy equips itself with a robust architecture, capable of translating normative ambitions into concrete, measurable, and lasting projects, and of anchoring international cooperation in a dynamic of regeneration and collective resilience.

VI. Case Studies and Feedback

1. AGILE and the Geneva Foundation for the Future

The Geneva Foundation for the Future finalized in January 2025 the development of the AGILE platform-tool (Alignment – Governance – Intention – Leadership – Efficiency), designed as a physical and digital tool for multilateral or multi-stakeholder negotiation, enabling dialogue and collaboration among states, development banks, impact investors, and philanthropic foundations. AGILE makes it possible to co-construct green and blue bonds in real time, with harmonized impact criteria targeting specific SDGs (SDG 13, 14, 15), allocate funds according to predefined schedules, and monitor implementation via a public dashboard.

Collaborative process: Thanks to its simplicity and agility, the tool allows relatively large groups — such as 50 state delegations and 120 private organizations — to engage in participatory processes. The tool itself emerged from 3 years of representative and participatory collaboration, and the pilot phase targets the evaluation, monitoring, or mentoring of 300 projects over another 3 years, aiming for an initial issuance volume of USD 5 billion by the end of the exploratory phase (field feedback).
Measurability and transparency: each project may either incorporate indicators validated by an ad hoc scientific committee (e.g., researchers from the UN Ocean Congress, Nice 2025), use a peer-review assessment grid, or undergo semi-annual audits by a third-party agency (KPMG Sustainability or others). This opens the possibility for the emergence of independent impact finance rating agencies.

By uniting stakeholders around a common language and measurable objectives, AGILE illustrates the potential of Impact Diplomacy to transform multilateral finance into a lever for ecological and social regeneration.

2. Climate Impact Diplomacy: Glasgow Climate Pact

The Glasgow Climate Pact, adopted at COP26 in November 2021, represents a first foray of Impact Diplomacy into the climate domain. It introduced for the first time:

Conditional financial commitments (USD 100 billion/year by 2025 for developing countries),
Biennial review clauses and an enhanced transparency mechanism (Enhanced Transparency Framework),
and the obligation for each state to publish a detailed climate action plan (NDC) with performance indicators (emission reduction rates, reforested area, share of renewable energy).

Several projects have been co-financed:

Tanzania Climate Resilience Bond (2023): USD 200 million for flood-resistant green infrastructure, evaluated using a local hydrological resilience index (World Bank, 2023).
Philippines Renewable Energy Accelerator: a public-private guarantee mechanism for installing 500 MW of community solar energy, with real-time tracking of production and CO₂ reduction metrics (Asian Development Bank, 2022).

This case shows how a diplomatic agreement can evolve into operational diplomacy, where the actual implementation of commitments is guided by shared indicators and continuous monitoring, placing impact measurement at the heart of decision-making.

3. “Green Borders” France-Spain Initiative for Alpine Conservation

The France-Spain bilateral agreement signed in 2022 for the joint management of Alpine mountain ranges illustrates a territorial impact diplomacy approach:

Transboundary ecological passport: issued to forest rangers and environmental agents, allowing free movement for wildfire control and joint ecosystem assessment (Ministries of the Environment, 2022).
Shared Alpine Observatory: a platform of climatic and biological data (temperatures, snowpack, alpine grassland status) developed by Météo-France, AEMET (Spain), and the Écrins National Park, with quarterly publication of impact reports (OFEV, 2023).
Pilot restoration projects: floral corridors planted across 1,200 ha (40% endemic species), financed by a mandatory contribution mechanism from ski resorts, and evaluated using a jointly defined ecosystem connectivity index (EU Alpine Strategy, 2022).

This initiative demonstrates how Impact Diplomacy can redefine border management, no longer as a dividing line, but as a regenerative cooperation zone, with measurable benefits for biodiversity, natural risk prevention, and local development.

These three case studies highlight the diversity of Impact Diplomacy modalities: from collaborative green finance to climate resilience reinforcement and ecosystem-based transboundary governance. Each illustrates the ability of this new form of diplomacy to align shared objectives, normative instruments, and monitoring mechanisms to produce concrete and lasting impacts.

VII. Limits, Challenges, and Prospects

1. Risks of Fragmentation and Competing Objectives

Despite its holistic ambition, Impact Diplomacy remains vulnerable to the multiplication of normative frameworks and competing — sometimes contradictory — objectives:

Proliferation of initiatives: there are now over fifty ESG standards, “green” labels, and impact frameworks. This dispersion complicates harmonization and burdens negotiation processes, risking a dilution of commitments (Haas, 2004).
Competing interests: national priorities (economic growth, food sovereignty) can conflict with cross-cutting ecological goals (biodiversity, climate). For instance, the 2023 revival of Argentina's cattle sector clashed with methane reduction targets under the Glasgow Pact (UNFCCC, 2021), illustrating the risk of a “diplomatic deadlock” due to opposing sectoral objectives.
Institutional fragmentation: sectoral bodies (FAO for agriculture, IMO for oceans) coexist globally without any real mechanism for cross-sector governance to arbitrate goal convergence or conflicts (Falkner, 2008).

2. Governance and Accountability

The effectiveness of Impact Diplomacy hinges on a delicate balance between adaptability and accountability:

Greenwashing, social-washing, and “impact-washing”: public or private actors may promote impact commitments without having independent verification mechanisms. According to a UNEP report (2023), nearly 40% of green bonds issued in 2022 had no third-party certification.
Capacity inequalities: Global South countries often struggle to provide reliable data to support SDG indicators due to lack of human and financial resources, potentially excluding them from the benefits of impact diplomacy (UN DESA, 2022).
Transparency and participation: ensuring legitimacy requires including local communities in decision-making and access to information. Yet, the technical complexity of ESG criteria and taxonomies (European Commission, 2023) poses a barrier to genuine inclusion.

3. Future Prospects

Several avenues are emerging to strengthen and expand Impact Diplomacy:

Creation of a global one-stop hub (Global Impact Hub) bringing together the UN, OECD, EU, and private actors to aggregate standards, harmonize verification protocols, and pool training resources (proposal initiated at the 3rd UN Ocean Conference, Nice 2025).
Strengthening local capacities through specialized diplomatic training programs (e.g., DIPIMP Master's program at the University of Geneva), combining science, international law, and impact project management.
Integration of emerging technologies:
- Artificial intelligence to analyze environmental and social data in real time, anticipate risks, and adjust commitments (UN Global Pulse, 2023).
- Digital twins of the Earth to simulate the effects of impact policies before full-scale implementation.
Opening up new diplomatic frontiers:
- Outer space: regulation of space activities and their impact on orbital and planetary environments (space debris, lunar mining) via “Space Impact Diplomacy.”
- Virtual borders and cyberspace: development of digital impact protocols to limit energy pollution from data centers and ensure equitable access to green technologies.

By overcoming the challenges of fragmentation, accountability, and capacity inequalities, Impact Diplomacy has the potential to become a true architecture of global governance, capable of aligning scientific rigor, participatory inclusion, and regenerative ambition.

VIII. Conclusion

Impact Diplomacy emerges as a major evolution of “soft” diplomacy, combining the attraction of knowledge and symbolic power with a new operational requirement: producing measurable benefits for the planet and its inhabitants. Grounded in its four pillars — transparency, inclusion, measurability, and shared intention — it offers a flexible legal and institutional framework capable of uniting public and private actors and local communities around regenerative and resilient projects.

The case studies analyzed — from the AGILE platform of the Geneva Foundation to the Glasgow Pact and the Green Borders initiative — demonstrate that Impact Diplomacy is not merely a theoretical concept but a concrete lever for action in biodiversity, social cohesion, peace, and sustainable development. It transforms compensation and CSR mechanisms into a proactive dynamic, where commitments no longer aim to “do less harm” but to “do better” from the start.

Faced with the risks of normative fragmentation, greenwashing, and capacity inequalities, its future will depend on our collective ability to harmonize standards, strengthen accountability, and develop global governance hubs. By anchoring international cooperation in a logic of regeneration and just abundance, Impact Diplomacy paves the way for a renewed diplomacy in service of a sustainable, equitable, and resilient world.

References

Bellamy, A. J. (2015). Preventive Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution. Oxford University Press.

Bound, K., Briggs, R., Holden, J., & Jones, S. (2007). Cultural Diplomacy. Demos.

Clayton, S., & Manning, C. (2018). Ecological Emotions: Understanding and Addressing Eco‑Anxiety. Routledge.

Commission mondiale sur l'environnement et le développement. (1987). Notre avenir à tous (rapport Brundtland). Oxford University Press.

Cummings, M. (2003). Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: A Survey. Center for Arts and Culture.

ECOWAS. (2018). Protocol on Transboundary Resource Management and Post‑Conflict Reconstruction: Abuja III. Economic Community of West African States.

European Commission. (2021). The European Green Deal (COM/2019/640 final).

European Parliament & Conseil de l'UE. (2020). Règlement (UE) 2020/852 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 18 juin 2020 relatif à l'établissement d'un cadre pour favoriser les investissements durables (Taxonomie verte). Journal officiel de l'Union européenne, L198, 13–43.

Gagnon, F. (2021). Inclusive Global Governance: Transparency and Participation. Routledge.

Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN). (2021). Annual Impact Investor Survey. GIIN.

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2023). GRI Standards. Global Reporting Initiative.

Gupta, J., Lebel, L., Huq, S., & Mirza, M. M. Q. (2020). Planetary Boundaries and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability, 3(10), 733–742.

High-Level Expert Group on the European Green Deal. (2022). Fit for 55 Package: Assessing the Impact and Ambition. Publications Office of the European Union.

International Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat.

International Monetary Fund & World Bank. (2023). Forest Bonds Ghana: Blended Finance for Restoration. IFC Publications.

Ministère de la Transition écologique (France) & Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica (Espagne). (2022). Accord franco‑espagnol pour la gestion conjointe des massifs alpins.

Moon, B. (2007). Science Diplomacy: A Pragmatic Perspective from the Inside. Science & Diplomacy, 1(1).

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. PublicAffairs.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

Pardo, A., & Prakash, A. (2017). Science Diplomacy in the Twenty‑First Century. Science & Diplomacy, 6(1).

PNUD. (2020). Human Development Report 2020: The Next Frontier — Human Development and the Anthropocene. United Nations Development Programme.

Rischard, J.‑F. (2002). High Noon: Twenty Global Problems, Twenty Years to Solve Them. Basic Books.

Rockefeller Foundation. (2023). Strategic Philanthropy in Community Health: Impact Metrics and Case Studies.

Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). (2021). SASB Standards. SASB Foundation.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., ... & Sörlin, S. (2018). Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 8252–8259.

Stone, R. (2019). Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn? World Scientific.

Turekian, V. D. (2014). Enhancing Science Diplomacy. Science & Diplomacy, 3(3).

UN. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1). United Nations.

UNEP/MAP – Plan Bleu. (2019). State of the Environment and Development in the Mediterranean. Plan Bleu, UNEP/MAP.

UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement (FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

UN Global Pulse. (2023). Data for Good: Blockchain for Climate and Social Data. United Nations.

World Bank. (2023). Tanzania Climate Resilience Bond: Impact Evaluation Report. World Bank Group.

Cooperating Differently: Collaborative Governance and Subsidiarity

Thomas EGLI — 2025-05-13T11:11:30Z

The President of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly asked me to speak in person in New York as part of the special conference on Harmony with Nature and Well-Being.

Read here the text of my speech for this session of the UN General Assembly – Harmony with Nature and Well-Being.,
Below you will find a summary of everything I was able to address during these 3 hours, specifically on the topics of collaborative governance and bio-inspired organizational management.

Since 2001, with the release of my book *Les idées du Vivant*, I have had the opportunity to practice and deploy dozens of bio-inspired organizations, both in the corporate sector, non-profits, NGOs, and governance structures.

However, during this intervention on April 22, I focused on certain specific aspects.

Towards Distributed and Co-Responsible Decision-Making

The crises our societies are facing are also crises of governance. Faced with the growing complexity of the world, hierarchical and top-down models are revealing their limits: slow, poorly adaptive, and not very inclusive.

Collaborative governance offers an alternative: distributing decision-making power, promoting co-responsibility, and drawing inspiration from living ecosystems to strengthen collective resilience and relevance.

This approach is based on a fundamental principle: subsidiarity, which states that each level of decision-making should primarily handle what it alone can effectively resolve, and that within each of these levels, skills and capacities should be expanded to as many as possible to ensure long-term maintenance. This approach balances proximity, agility, and overall coherence, providing resilience and robustness.

Drawing Inspiration from Nature for Governance

Nature offers a myriad of organizational models:

The nervous system distributes information and adapts responses in real time,
The immune system decentralizes detection and reaction to disruptions,
Ant colonies regulate their activities through weak signals, without a leader,
Ecosystems self-regulate through multiple, interdependent relationships,
and so on... (hormones, fractals, etc. are all winning sources of inspiration).

These living structures demonstrate that it is possible to govern without rigid centralization, but rather through a coordinated distribution of skills, with multiple roles, feedback loops, and distributed collective intelligence.

In these models, the role of facilitation replaces the function of domination. Facilitators, like catalysts in a chemical reaction or relay cells in a biological network, support the emergence of strong consensus rather than deciding on behalf of others.

Governance for Learning and Managing Complexity

Our current systems tend to prefer the complicated over the complex: multiplying rules, organizational charts, and reports. While the complicated can be tedious, it is predictable. Complexity, however, is less easy to control but much more fertile.

Training citizens, elected officials, and public agents to manage complexity rather than just the complicated enables us to face uncertainty, integrate divergent perspectives, and foster the emergence of new solutions.

This is a genuine challenge in political and social education: building cooperation skills increases the capacity of collectives to endure.

The Role of Science and Mediation

Science has a crucial role to play in supporting participatory public policies: data production, complex systems modeling, multi-criteria evaluation, and support for consultation.

Combined with participatory facilitation tools, stakeholder mapping, or citizen deliberation, they become powerful levers for producing robust, acceptable, and well-informed decisions.

Examples of Distributed Governance

Citizen climate assemblies (France, United Kingdom) illustrate the possibility of involving randomly selected citizens, experts, and facilitators to produce bold proposals,
Participatory budgets in many cities (Porto Alegre, Grenoble, Maputo) concretely redistribute power,
Cooperatives governed by sociocracy integrate decision circles, double links, and consent, combining efficiency and inclusion.

Key Messages

Collaborative governance is a major lever for stability, adaptability, and collective creativity.
Subsidiarity prevents excessive centralization and values local skills.
Sciences can enrich participatory processes and public policies through mediation, modeling, and shared evaluation.
Facilitators replace leaders in a dynamic of strong consensus.
Drawing inspiration from nature allows us to imagine stable, adaptable, and more resilient collectives.

Interventions by Mr. Thomas EGLI on April 22, 2025, in New York

Link to the UN web TV, April 22 session (you can watch in French or English by adjusting the audio)

Suggested Bibliography

Elinor Ostrom (1990), *Governing the Commons*
Thomas Egli (2001), *Les idées du Vivant*
Frédéric Laloux (2014), *Reinventing Organizations*
Bruno Latour (2021), *Où suis-je ?*
CNDP (2020), *La concertation en actes*

Concept of Living Well Together: rethinking development from the South

Thomas EGLI — 2025-05-02T14:47:43Z

The 79th session of the UN General Assembly held a special conference on Harmony with Nature and Living Well. But what does this term mean?

Read here the text of my speech on this session,
Read here my previous article on Impact Finance and the refinancing of life.

The turning point of "Vivir Bien" and alternatives from the Global South

Faced with the deadlock of the unlimited growth model, voices from the Global South are rising to propose other visions of development. These visions, such as the Andean Buen Vivir, African Ubuntu, or the Sufficiency Economy in Thailand, prioritize the relationship with Nature, the community, and time.

These are not idealistic discourses, but concrete political, economic, and legal frameworks already being implemented in several countries.

Successful experiences: evidence of feasibility and transformation

In Bolivia, the concept of Vivir Bien (Living Well) was included in the 2009 Constitution. It led to the creation of laws recognizing the rights of Mother Earth, the institution of local development policies based on multi-activity, and concerted territorial development initiatives. The National Biocultural Program integrates indigenous knowledge into public policy.

In Ecuador, integrating Buen Vivir into national planning has enabled the implementation of community health plans, intercultural education, and non-destructive rural infrastructure. The Secretariat of Buen Vivir has produced several alternative indicators to GDP, based on living systems, with criteria directly linked to humanity's survival.

In Thailand, the Sufficiency Economy (Sufficiency Economy Philosophy) was formalized in the 9th National Plan (2002–2006) and guided policies for agricultural relocalization, the creation of cooperatives, and energy sobriety. The six royal development centers link peasant knowledge, rural innovation, and ecosystem preservation.

In South Africa, integrating the Ubuntu ethic into certain restorative justice or community development policies inspires models of social governance where relationships take precedence over individual performance.

Models suited to systemic challenges

These visions offer converging responses to global challenges:

Climate crisis: they propose systems of organized sobriety.
Social crisis: they promote solidarity, commons, and relational ecosystems.
Crisis of meaning: they bring back to the forefront the goal of collective well-being and respect for life.

Relying on local knowledge, community dynamics, and territorial scales, they strengthen human societies' resilience while reducing their ecological footprint.

This diversification of worldviews and sources of knowledge constitutes a systemic strength comparable to biodiversity in natural ecosystems: it increases the capacity for resilience, adaptation, and innovation in the face of change and crises. Failing to fully integrate the contributions of indigenous approaches would not only be a moral blindness, but also a strategic error for societies wishing to endure.

It is therefore essential that dominant systems take these approaches into account with heightened vigilance, not out of condescension or altruism, but for systemic coherence.

Strategic interests in developing them

Experiences from the South show that these alternatives are not peripheral, but central to the global transition. Several strategic reasons justify their expansion:

Lower ecological cost for significant economic and social impact.
Strong territorial anchoring, ensuring better appropriation by populations.
Reduction of external dependencies (financial, energy, food).
Increased social stability, through the importance of community ties and sharing.
Ultimately, this is the same approach as cutting-edge intermediate technologies (low tech) in the field of societal organization.
Many international actors (UNDP, FAO, IPCC) now recognize the relevance of these models. Climate transition, for example, cannot happen without locally appropriate and culturally rooted solutions.

A global paradigm shift

Rethinking development from the South means understanding that the diversity of worldviews is a planetary asset. It does not mean giving up modernity, but reinventing it from living roots.

These models can inspire hybrid public policies, innovative cooperation mechanisms, and powerful narratives for a civilization in harmony with Nature.

Mr. Thomas EGLI's interventions on April 22, 2025 in New York

Link to the UN web TV, session of Apr. 22 (you can watch in French or English by adjusting the audio)

Indicative bibliography

Eduardo Gudynas (2011), Buen Vivir: Today's Tomorrow
UNDP Bolivia (2014), Living Well Framework
Piboolsravut, P. (2004), Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy
UNEP (2015), Multiple Pathways to Sustainable Development: Initial Findings from the Global South
Thomas Egli (2001–2021), Ideas of the Living – Bio-inspired systemic governance

Financing the living world: towards a regenerative economy and a positive impact finance

Thomas EGLI — 2025-04-25T15:39:42Z

The President of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly has asked me to speak in presential in New York at the special conference on Harmony with Nature and Living Well.

Read here the text of my intervention on this session,
You will find below a summary of what I was able to talk about during these 3 hours, specifically on the subject of Impact Finance and the refinancing of the living.

Since the early 2000s, I have witnessed – and been a long-distance participant in – successive attempts to reconcile finance with the common good.
At the time, we were still talking about ethical finance: a marginal approach, full of good intentions but rarely translated into actual investment mechanisms. Then came the 2010s, marked by the rise of ESG criteria – Environmental, Social, Governance – which gradually reached the radar of major institutions, though without always changing the core of the financial machine.
Today, in the 2020s, a more radical shift is emerging: that of impact finance, which is demanding, measurable, and transformative.

This emerging movement carries a new ambition: to re-enchant finance not through idealism, but through its concrete capacity to support an economy of regeneration, cooperation, and shared abundance. A form of finance that no longer settles for damage limitation, but that aims to create meaning, life, and value for all.

A finance to be re-founded: moving beyond extraction, avoiding the commodification of life

Contemporary finance is one of the main drivers of ecosystem destruction: by directing capital flows toward extractive, short-term, and disconnected activities from the cycles of life, it fuels a growth model incompatible with Nature.
In this changing landscape, several structuring initiatives play a catalytic role in this new vision of finance. In Geneva, the Building Bridges movement has become an essential meeting point between traditional finance, impact actors, the United Nations, and civil society, offering a unique space to build bridges between still-too-siloed worlds. In this same dynamic, the Annual International Conference on Impact Finance for Peace and Development, organized by the Geneva Forum, has managed to foster a cross-sector dialogue between investors, institutions, project leaders and fragile territories, with a clear focus on sustainable reconstruction and conflict prevention. To amplify these efforts, 40 impact funds have united under the name United for Impact and launched an appeal to recognize impact on a level beyond ESG. Finally, the creation of the Geneva Foundation for the Future embodies the long-term anchoring of this vision through an agile, interdisciplinary instrument capable of supporting the systemic transformation of financing models in service of future generations.
It is therefore imperative to profoundly transform how money circulates and what it is mobilized for. But this transformation can only succeed if we avoid a major trap: the capitalization and commodification of the living world.
Assigning financial value to Nature as a method of protection may produce short-term incentives. But in the long run, it reinforces an anthropocentric approach, where Nature only has value through what it brings us. This amounts to transforming life into exploitable assets, disconnecting it from its own dynamics, which carries real risks of harmful impacts on Nature, while perpetuating mechanisms of domination, speculation, and appropriation.

A bio-inspired approach to organizational management requires not monetizing what belongs to the sacred living world. Such confusion distances finance from its potential to serve life, and fuels the very problems it claims to solve.

Putting money at the service of life

The regeneration of the living world is not a cost; it is a structural investment in the future. This requires a paradigm shift: putting finance back in the service of well-being, of life, and of projects with positive impact.

The tools exist:

Impact finance: investments directed toward ecological, social, and territorial projects that go beyond green finance or responsible finance.
Participatory funds: democratic and local governance of capital allocation.
Local currencies and exchange systems: anchoring economic flows within ecosystems.
Add here Ethical and smart currencies: and define

This shift in purpose creates a reciprocity effect: the more finance serves life, the more it generates lasting abundance and true wealth, including monetary wealth, since the systems are then interwoven and assume an interdependence inherent to the functioning of life.

Nature-based solutions: a lever for convergence

Nature-based solutions demonstrate that restoring ecosystems can simultaneously address climate, social, and economic challenges:

Wetland restoration = flood regulation + biodiversity + local agriculture
Agroforestry = carbon capture + soil fertility + food sovereignty
Coastal rehabilitation = storm protection + sustainable tourism + artisanal and agricultural production

Nature-based solutions are financially attractive: they generate measurable co-benefits, attract green financing while meeting the standards of impact finance, and align with the SDGs.

But again, care must be taken not to turn them into disconnected financial products. Their grounding in local governance, ecological knowledge, and commons is essential.

Concrete tools for regenerative finance

To root finance in the dynamics of the living world, several levers can be activated:
Integral accounting: incorporating natural, social, and cultural capital into balance sheets.
Payments for ecosystem services (PES): recognizing the value of ecological functions (pollination, water filtration, carbon storage).
Ethical and cooperative banks: responsible credit and investment models.
Regenerative green bonds: funding projects that actively restore ecosystems.

Toward financial harmony with Nature

This is not about "greening" existing finance, but about changing the matrix. In an economy in harmony with Nature, money is no longer an end but a means of supporting living cycles.

A bio-inspired company will direct its flows toward regenerating its territories. A local authority will fund green infrastructure and ecological employment. A responsible investor will value ecological and human indicators as much as monetary returns, which will not decrease—quite the opposite. Truly ecological and resilient projects naturally generate more revenue than “greenwashed” projects, which are bound to malfunction.

True wealth then becomes shared abundance, rooted in longevity, vitality, and interdependence. Such finance, aligned with the principles of life, generates more life, and therefore more value—in addition to generating higher financial returns in the strictest sense.

Mr. Thomas EGLI's Interventions on April 22, 2025 in New York

Link to UN Web TV, April 22 session (you can watch in French or English by adjusting the audio)

Indicative Bibliography

Kate Raworth (2017), Doughnut Economics
UNEP (2021, 2022, 2023…), State of Finance for Nature and Aligning Finance for the Planet
Commonland Foundation (2022), 4 Returns Framework
Thomas Egli (2023), Work on Bio-inspired systemic governance and Deep-impact finance
CIFOR-ICRAF (2022), Annual report on Nature-based Solutions and Climate Finance

The power of the collective: participatory science and ecological democracy

Thomas EGLI — 2025-04-23T22:49:10Z

An Ongoing Evolution

In a rapidly changing world, participatory science, which emerged from 1992 to 2005 before experiencing a significant expansion, is proving to be a powerful lever to reconnect human societies with Nature, while transforming our relationship to knowledge, action, and governance. By placing citizens at the heart of data production, analysis, and solution-building, it gives new meaning to science and strengthens the capacity for collective action.

Citizens as Knowledge Actors

Participatory science is based on a simple yet transformative principle: involving citizens in all stages of scientific research. This ranges from field observation (such as bird monitoring, pollinating insects, or water quality) to co-constructing protocols, analyzing data, formulating hypotheses, and disseminating results—including in both fundamental and applied research across hard sciences, engineering, and social sciences.

Naturally, this is done with and by scientists, and all these stages comply with the necessary frameworks to ensure the proper conduct of such research.

This involvement produces a cumulative capacity effect:
Scientific literacy: citizens access scientific concepts through practice.
Discernment ability: by learning to read data, compare, and engage in debate.
Methodology: participants gain rigor, critical thinking, and investigative logic.
Collective soft skills: cooperation, responsibility, active listening, and local engagement.

Thus, participatory science also serves as a school for ecological citizenship.
On this topic, we were invited to speak at the request of the President of the UN General Assembly in 2019, on the theme of Participatory Science advancing the Rights of Nature.

New Research Subjects Serving the Commons

Because it is rooted in local contexts and initiated by concrete questions, participatory science broadens the scope of explored topics:

Local environment (pollution, biodiversity, soil health, climate effects)
Ecological or health-related risks
Cultural practices, intergenerational knowledge transfer
Shared resources (water, forests, coastal areas)

This diversification reconnects science with the real needs of communities, while creating useful data for institutional researchers, local authorities, and NGOs.

Well-structured participatory science programs thus become tools supporting public policies, particularly in the areas of biodiversity, environmental health, land-use planning, and climate resilience.

They also offer a concrete lever for implementing the Rights of Nature (via citizen observatories, early warnings, or evidence gathering), and for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDGs 13, 14, 15, and 16.

An Ecological Democracy in the Making

Participatory science is not merely an awareness-raising tool: it transforms the relationship between science, citizenship, and power.

Toward distributed expertise: the lines between experts and laypeople are blurring.
Toward co-productive governance: citizens become partners with decision-makers.
Toward shared knowledge of living systems: Nature becomes the subject of collective observation, in a non-anthropocentric approach.

These dynamics contribute to a true ecological democracy, where everyone can participate in the collective intelligence concerning global and local issues.
Researchers, engineers, and scientists in general, who believe they can help citizens develop skills and methods to join them in conducting research, are growing in number each year. Today, countries and major regions have established large federations and collaboration platforms engaging the scientific community and providing a broad toolbox.

Flagship Examples

The Scientific Expeditions by the NGO Objectif Sciences International, designed to be accessible to all, always playful and affordable
The Pl@ntNet program, where citizens document local flora.
The Vigie-Nature network, led by the Natural History Museum (France).
Citizen plankton observation groups monitoring ocean health.
The Earth Challenge 2020 project, led by Earth Day Network and the Wilson Center.

Mr. Thomas EGLI's Interventions on April 22, 2025 in New York

Link to UN Web TV, April 22 session (you can watch in French or English by adjusting the audio)

Suggested Bibliography

Bibliography compiled by the Harmony with Nature Program
Alan Irwin (1995), Citizen Science
Objectif Sciences International (1992, 2000, 2005, 2016, 2018, 2022), Various charters and frameworks on participatory science and participatory research
Michel Callon, Pierre Lascoumes, Yannick Barthe (2001), Acting in an Uncertain World
Haklay, M. (2015), Citizen Science and Policy
Cynthia Selin et al. (2013), Finding futures: A spatiovisual experiment in participatory engagement