Why business should co-lead in crisis response

The term “permacrisis” has become something of a cliché in global affairs. But behind the overused rhetoric, the data is truly sobering. In 2024, the world experienced 110 armed conflicts — the highest count since World War II — while extreme weather displaced more than 800,000 people. At the same time, official aid budgets are being cut or redirected, with humanitarian institutions being asked to do more with fewer resources. Meeting this challenge will require not only more funding but new forms of collaborative cooperation. The future of humanitarian response depends on building a broader coalition of players — drawing not just on public institutions and NGOs, but also on the capacity, reach, and problem-solving capabilities of the private sector. Lessons from Ukraine In Dnipropetrovsk, a region of eastern Ukraine heavily affected by conflict, more than 2,000 children have continued their education thanks to a partnership between global tech firm Infosys and the U.K. charity Street Child. Together, they built seven Digital Learning Centers — complete with laptops, satellite internet, bomb shelters, and accessible facilities. Infosys had no prior presence in Ukraine. It simply recognized a need and applied its core strength: digital infrastructure. Flexport, a global logistics and technology firm, responded within two weeks of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 by building supply chains to deliver aid across Ukraine and neighboring countries. Since then, its social impact arm, Flexport.org, has funded and managed the delivery of more than 23 million pounds (about 10.4 million kilograms) of essential goods, including medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, and food aid, coordinating with humanitarian agencies to ensure supplies arrive where and when they’re needed. Henry Schein, a global health care solutions company, also mobilized rapidly to support the humanitarian response in Ukraine. With decades of experience in emergency preparedness and public-private partnerships, the company delivered critical trauma and emergency care supplies within days of the invasion, partnering with NATO and other organizations. The lesson from these examples is that successful private sector intervention is about more than just donations. It’s about leveraging capabilities — networks, systems, and specialized expertise — that enhance and accelerate humanitarian delivery. This is not about replacing traditional humanitarian players. It is about complementing them — working together to ensure resources are responsive to needs on the ground. Yet, the international system still lacks the frameworks to fully enable such cooperation. Entry points for business are often unclear. Operational roles are rarely defined. And a lingering perception persists that business can fund relief efforts but should not deliver them. We need to move beyond that antiquated division of labor. A million dollars in logistics or digital infrastructure, deployed through a company’s expertise and networks, can often do more for people in need than a million-dollar check. When businesses work in tandem with local partners as strategic collaborators — contributing what they are uniquely equipped to deliver — they help build faster, smarter, more resilient systems; extend the reach of frontline responders; and sustain operations in complex environments. What does best practice look like? The Private Sector Humanitarian Alliance, or PSHA, a coordination platform, is working alongside the United Nations to bring companies into humanitarian planning and response from the outset, alongside a range of NGOs and public agencies. But more is needed: regulatory clarity, reform of procurement systems, and shared operational protocols. Of course, private-sector involvement must be firmly rooted in the core principles of humanitarian action: neutrality, impartiality, independence, and humanity. These are not optional. They are the basis of trust in crisis settings. As more private players engage, the system must ensure these principles are clearly upheld — and that companies understand and respect them fully. With sound governance, accountability, and sustained partnership, we can build a model of cooperation that strengthens rather than undermines the international response to humanitarian crises. In fact, many global companies already operate with robust ethical standards and risk protocols. With the right guidance and coordination, these systems can be aligned with humanitarian principles — provided engagement is driven by locally led partners and adapted to real-time contexts. The cost of exclusion is greater than the risk of inclusion. If we fail to integrate the private sector effectively, we miss out on critical infrastructure, networks, and expertise that can mean the difference between timely aid and prolonged suffering. We also risk further widening the gap between available resources and critical needs. In the years ahead, climate shocks, protracted conflicts, and economic instability will continue to drive demand for humanitarian services. The challenge is not only how to fund this rising need but how to deliver, adapt, and scale the response more effectively. That means welcoming new players to the table — with clear roles, safeguards, and mutual respect. It means valuing not only what business can give, but what it can do. Because when lives are on the line, the most important question isn’t who delivers the help. It’s whether the help gets to those so urgently in need. Update, Sept. 16, 2025: This article has been updated to clarify the kilogram equivalent of the delivery Flexport.org has funded and managed, which is about 10.4 million kilograms.