Dunantist principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence are central to the ethos of NGOs which exist to fulfil the humanitarian imperative – “the prime motivation of our [NGO] response to disaster is to alleviate human suffering amongst those least able to withstand the stress caused by disaster”[i].

This clarity of purpose, being motivated by humanitarian concerns above all else, has enabled humanitarian agencies to protect their access to the beneficiaries for who they work. “The ethic of humanitarianism…includes both consequentialist and duty-based ethics—it seeks to provide life-saving relief and holds that the motives matter for assuring benevolence”[ii].

As NGOs are motivated by the right to offer humanitarian assistance to all citizens of all countries, not by political agendas or economic incentives, they are uniquely positioned to intervene in complex environments. The protection of humanitarian space is a vital component of everyday humanitarian work and adhering to the humanitarian principles is the only way to ensure that response agencies will be able to access their beneficiaries and fulfil the humanitarian imperative in the long term.

The growth in the humanitarian sector to include private companies as partners and implementers challenges the notion that organizations working in the humanitarian sector must be driven by the humanitarian imperative alone. The inclusion of commercial firms whose fundamental purpose is to make a profit necessitates an examination of the consequences when the humanitarian imperative is but one of many motivations.

Why logistics?

In the five-year period between 2006 and 2010 delivery agencies managed US$62 billion worth of funding in their responses to international disasters[iii]. Emergency response is a sector with a high value and seemingly growing opportunities as disasters are increasing in frequency.

This piece will consider whether the proliferation of commercial firms in the logistics sector of humanitarian aid undermines the purity of motive that humanitarian agencies strive to embody. Humanitarian logistics, defined as “the process of planning, implementing and controlling the efficient, cost-effective flow and storage of goods and materials, as well as related information, from the point of origin to the point of consumption for the purpose of alleviating the suffering of vulnerable people”[iv], has been recognized as the backbone of disaster relief; accounting for between 60-80% of total expenditures of aid agencies in emergencies[v].

The fact that logistics is the area of humanitarian response in which private firms have great expertise and are already significantly engaged merits its focus in this discussion. The private sector focuses on being as cost effective as possible in their delivery. Greater investments in the professionalization of the complete supply chain and technology play a central role in making private enterprise efficient logisticians. The humanitarian supply chain, conversely, does not consider profit; rather it is driven by speed and cost[vi].

Aid agencies must negotiate unknown, complex and changeable environments to deliver goods to vulnerable populations as quickly as possible with limited resources. Humanitarian supply chains can be short-term and unstable in terms of resources and demand[vii]. This means that while humanitarian agencies are more agile, their ability to develop and hone a streamlined supply chain which can increase efficiencies and drive down costs is limited by the ever changing circumstances in which they work.

Though humanitarian logistics is an area of work of high importance for the sector, humanitarian agencies are decades behind the private sector in investing in supply chain management[viii]. This, combined with the ever changing context, has resulted in their relative inefficiency compared to commercial firms. The commercialization of the logistics sector has been largely driven by donors’ increasing awareness of humanitarian expenses and their pursuit of value for money[ix]. 

As a result of the efficiency they display, the private sector is often perceived as adding value as implementers of humanitarian supply chains but the cost of their participation to the long-term preservation of humanitarian space must be debated.

Motives of the Private sector:

The overarching goal of a commercial firm is to turn a profit and provide a solid return to its shareholders[x]. This is not to say that private corporations cannot try to align themselves with humanitarian principles or that they are not sensitive to the needs that humanitarian agencies work to meet.

However, amongst the complex web of motivations and drivers for a company’s behaviour the management will always ultimately be forced to show that their role in the humanitarian sphere is adding value to the company[xi].

Corporate social responsibility, positive branding, and employee motivation are some of the reasons that companies invest in the humanitarian sphere. However, corporations and small companies also use humanitarian aid as an area of learning and skill development, an avenue to grow their businesses, and as a way to access new markets.

In this regard private sector partners engage in aid instrumentalization –“ the use of humanitarian action or rhetoric as a tool to pursue political, security, development, economic, or other non-humanitarian goals, which would muddy humanitarian principles and constrain access to those in need”[xii].

Aid instrumentalization is most often thought of as the purview of governments, which may use humanitarian aid to soften perceptions of their foreign policy or military action. However, whether the motives are political or economic, allowing humanitarian aid to be used in a manner which is not for the express purpose of alleviating human suffering is detrimental to maintaining the humanitarian space.

What is the cost of private sector expansion into the humanitarian field?

Challenges to private sector engagement is often met with the following rejoinder “If the legitimacy and value of humanitarian action is based strictly on deliverables and producing measurable outcomes—saving lives at the cheapest price—then why not hire a private agency, if available?”[xiii]

Saving lives at the cheapest price is a myopic and reductionist way to view humanitarian work. At its most basic and fundamental level, humanitarian action does accomplish these aims. However, a more comprehensive definition of a successful humanitarian operation is one which “mitigates the urgent needs of a population with a sustainable reduction of vulnerability in the shortest amount of time and with the least amount of resources”[xiv].

This definition, while more comprehensive, still does not take into account the modalities of the humanitarian work being carried out. While embodying Dunantist principles and striving to fulfil the humanitarian imperative above all else might seem secondary, they are, in fact, elemental to a humanitarian agency’s ability to continue to provide humanitarian aid in the future.

Once NGOs no longer abide by these principles the space in which they operate will be reduced over time and, consequentially, so will their access to vulnerable populations.  The encroachment of private companies in the humanitarian sphere means that the preservation of Dunantist principles and the fulfilment of the humanitarian objective above all is no longer considered a necessary part of a successful humanitarian operation.

The cost to beneficiaries will ultimately come as the humanitarian system is undermined over time. It could be suggested that private sector firms’ inclusion in logistics, an area of humanitarian work where they have limited direct contact with beneficiaries does not affect humanitarianism and in fact supports humanitarian agencies to operate more efficiently.

While increasing the efficacy of NGOs is important, humanitarian agencies cannot claim to be independent, impartial or, most importantly, motivated solely by the humanitarian imperative if 60-80% of their budget for aid relief is delivered by a for-profit company which has a separate set of drivers and motivations.

Commercialisation of the logistics sector eats into humanitarian space by blurring the material and discursive boundaries around what it means to be a humanitarian actor which undermines the unique position that enables NGOs to work everywhere. “Any compromise on the humanitarian principles…would nullify the intent of the operation and take it out of the ethical context and mandate of the participating organizations.”[xv]

If the diversification of actors in the humanitarian sphere and the commercialisation of a central part of humanitarian operations unavoidably dilute the importance of humanitarian principles and the humanitarian imperative that guard the humanitarian space in which NGOs uniquely operate, what is the future for humanitarian work in a world where a variety of actors seems inevitable?

Mitigation:

While private sector expansion in the humanitarian logistics is likely to be stunted by the complexities of the system, the inclusion of the private sector in the logistics sphere appears to be irreversible. As such, humanitarian agencies must grapple with the best way to mitigate their impact on the humanitarian space. One proposal suggests that the most important problem with business involvement in the humanitarian sector is the lack of guidelines[xvi].

By comparison, military involvement in humanitarian response is governed by the Oslo Guidelines. These expressly state that military involvement in humanitarian responses should be governed by humanitarian principles, avoid direct assistance as much as possible, and only be used as a last resort[xvii].

The SPHERE standards recognized “an increased involvement of the private sector in humanitarian response [requires] similar guidelines and strategies as the civil–military dialogue”[xviii]. The World Economic Forum created a similar document on the Guiding Principles for Public-Private Collaboration for Humanitarian Action[xix], however, as with all guidelines, they are not enforceable and they do not suggest that private firms should be a last resort.

Guidelines and documents such as these can mitigate the effect of diversifying the actors in the humanitarian sphere by imbibing partnerships with the values of humanitarianism but the diversification of partners involved in an integral area of humanitarian response ultimately changes the humanitarian space that the Dunantist principles try to protect.

The relationship which has developed between NGOs and private companies must be closely monitored by NGOs as they continue to invest in their own capacity in logistics. It is crucial that humanitarian agencies retain control in each phase of response implementation to protect their current and future access to beneficiaries.

Beneficiaries are at the centre of humanitarianism and without continued and sustained access, humanitarian agencies will not be able to provide the lifesaving interventions which are so desperately needed by populations affected by disasters. Humanitarian principles and the humanitarian imperative are the ultimate guardians of the humanitarian space and must be promoted at every level - a task for which NGOs remain uniquely suited.

[i] ICRC Code of Conduct, Clause 1

[ii] Barnett, Michael (Dec. 2005 ) “Humanitarianism Transformed” Perspectives on Politics pp723-740 pg 733[iii] Global Humanitarian Assistance, Delivery Workstream

[iv] Thomas, A. and Kopczak, L (2005) “From Logistics to Supply Chain Management: The path forward in the humanitarian sector” Fritz Institute, pg. 2

[v] Blansjaar, M. and Van der Horwe. C. “Importance of IT in Humanitarian Supply Chain: Opportunities and Challenges in HELIOS Project in Christopher, M. and Tatham, P. (2011) Humanitarian Logistics: Meeting the Challenge of Preparing for and Responding to Disasters, UK and USA, Kogan Page Publishers and Van Wassenhove, L. (2006) Blackett Memorial Lecture, “Humanitarian Aid Logistics: Supply Chain Management in High Gear” Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 57, pp475-489 (pg. 475)

[vi] Tomasini, R. and Wassenhove, L. (2009) “From preparedness to partnerships: case study research on humanitarian logistics” International Transactions in Operational Research pp549-559 pg 550

[vii] Oloruntoba, R. and Gray, R. (2006) “Humanitarian aid: an agile supply chain?” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal Vol. 11 No. 2 pp115-120

[viii] Thomas, A. and Kopczak, L (2005) “From Logistics to Supply Chain Management: The path forward in the humanitarian sector” Fritz Institute, pg. 7

[ix] Barnett, Michael (Dec. 2005 ) “Humanitarianism Transformed” Perspectives on Politics pp723-740 pg 729

[x] Beamon, B. and Balcik B. (2008) “Performance measurement in humanitarian relief chains” International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 21 No. 1 pp4-25 pg 7

[xi] Van Wassenhove, L. (2006) Blackett Memorial Lecture, “Humanitarian Aid Logistics: Supply Chain Management in High Gear” Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 57, pp475-489 (pg. 487)

[xii] The use and abuse of humanitarian principle IRIN News Service

[xiii] Barnett, Michael (Dec. 2005 ) “Humanitarianism Transformed” Perspectives on Politics pp723-740 pg 733

[xiv] Tomasini RM and Van Wassenhove (2004) “ A framework to unravel, prioritize and coordinate vulnerability and complexity factors affecting a humanitarian response operation” in Van Wassenhove, L. (2006) Blackett Memorial Lecture, “Humanitarian Aid Logistics: Supply Chain Management in High Gear” Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 57, pp475-489 (pg. 480)

[xv] Van Wassenhove, L. (2006) Blackett Memorial Lecture, “Humanitarian Aid Logistics: Supply Chain Management in High Gear” Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 57, pp475-489 (pg. 479)

[xvi] Binder, A. and Witte, J. (2007) “Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and policy implications” Global Public Policy Institute and Overseas Development Institute pg 16

[xvii] Oslo Guidelines (2007) Guidelines on The Use of Foreign Military and Civil Defence Assets In Disaster Relief

[xviii] The Sphere Project (2012) Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response

[xix] UN World Economic Forum (2008) Guiding Principles for Public-Private Collaboration for Humanitarian Action