After the grant: the missing infrastructure between impact money and local markets
Why funding is only the beginning and how spending decisions determine what impact money ultimately builds.
When we speak about impact funding, most attention goes towards the moment the money is allocated. A foundation selects an organisation, an investor commits capital or a donor approves a programme. Considerable effort may have gone into the strategy, due diligence and impact framework, and once the agreement is signed, it can feel as if the impact is already under way. In reality, the grant marks the point at which ambition has to become operational. The money still needs to be spent, and between its allocation and the outcomes eventually reported sit hundreds of decisions about products, services, suppliers and contracts.
We have become increasingly sophisticated at deciding what should be funded, but we pay far less attention to what happens after the money arrives. Yet spending is not simply an operational consequence of a grant. It is also a distribution of economic opportunity and power.
The second impact of a grant
My thoughts on this comes from many years of working in global humanitarian and health logistics and supply chains. A programme can have an inspiring objective, committed people and urgently needing funding, but someone still has to source the medical equipment, identify a transporter, procure construction materials or establish a supply chain that could function under pressure. The quality of those decisions determine whether the right goods arrived on time, whether they are appropriate for the context and whether limited resources are used responsibly. Over time, I began to notice the consequences that were less visible in programme reports. Every contract create an opportunity for one supplier rather than another, influencing where businesses can invest, where employment is created and who gains the experience required to compete for future opportunities.
Every grant therefore has at least two forms of impact. There is the impact created through the activities it funds, which is usually measured and reported. Alongside it sits an economic impact created through the way the money is spent: which organisations gain influence, which businesses grow and where knowledge and capacity accumulate. We rarely examine this second impact with the same seriousness as the first.
This divide was one of the reasons I began building Solvoz, but it has also shaped a much broader question in my work: not only what does a programme deliver, but what kind of market does its spending help to create?
What happens after the allocation?
Funders conduct due diligence and ask for localisation strategies, sustainability commitments and measurable outcomes. Once the money has been awarded, however, scrutiny often narrows towards whether expenditure was eligible, procedures were followed and activities were completed. Compliance is essential, but it does not tell us whether the funding strengthened local capacity or reinforced existing concentrations of market power. An organisation can follow every procedure while purchasing almost everything through established international suppliers. Funding intended to promote inclusion can remain inaccessible to smaller, women-led or less well-connected enterprises.
This usually does not happen because anyone opposes localisation. Procurement teams work under pressure, with limited time and incomplete information. Familiar suppliers appear less risky, while smaller businesses may not know that an opportunity exists or may struggle with requirements designed around much larger companies.
The systems surrounding the money therefore influence who can participate long before a final supplier is selected.
Local markets require more than good intentions
Asking organisations to buy locally is not enough. Their teams need to be able to identify capable suppliers, understand what they offer and compare them fairly without lowering quality or accountability. Smaller businesses need visibility, but they may also need realistic tender requirements, manageable payment terms and access to working capital. There is also the question of what we mean by local. A locally registered intermediary importing everything from elsewhere may contribute less to economic resilience than a manufacturer operating elsewhere in the region. Meanwhile, a small local business may create employment and knowledge but remain unable to compete because it lacks tendering experience, works in another language or cannot absorb long payment delays.
Value for money is equally important. It is too often reduced to the lowest purchase price, even though a cheaper product may become more expensive once its lifespan, energy use, maintenance, spare parts and eventual replacement are taken into account. Considering total cost of ownership can result in a very different decision, particularly when a local or regional supplier can provide repairs and continuity after an international contract has ended.
The missing infrastructure between impact money and local markets is therefore broader than a procurement system or digital tool. It includes people who understand the market, reliable information, suitable specifications, fair payment conditions, maintenance capacity, supplier relationships and knowledge that remains available after a project ends. Technology can support this, but it cannot compensate for unrealistic requirements, insufficient capacity or a lack of trust. In addition, and too often, these foundations are rebuilt for every new programme. A market assessment or supplier database is created, used temporarily and then forgotten. The next organisation starts again, while local businesses repeatedly invest time in becoming visible to one project after another.
If we want funding to leave stronger markets behind, we need to invest in the conditions that allow knowledge, relationships and capacity to continue beyond an individual grant.
What should remain after the money is spent?
Funders do not need to control individual purchasing decisions and smaller organisations should not face another layer of donor approval. Funders can, however, ask whether procurement and market engagement have been adequately resourced, whether smaller businesses can access opportunities and whether the programme’s purchasing criteria reflect its wider objectives.
This is particularly important when working with smaller organisations. We ask them to meet complex requirements and deliver ambitious outcomes, while often expecting them to construct the necessary operational capabilities project by project. If localisation is intended to shift power, the infrastructure supporting it cannot remain the sole burden of the organisations we want to empower. Perhaps the most useful question is therefore not only whether a programme delivered its planned activities, but what its spending left behind. Did it contribute to stronger suppliers, better market knowledge and more capable organisations? Did it broaden access to economic opportunity, or did that opportunity remain with those already best positioned to reach it?
A grant describes an ambition, but money reaches real economies through contracts and suppliers. If we want to understand its full impact, we have to look beyond what the funding delivered and examine the market it helped to shape.
Related thinking
We can create the world we want to see
Markets are not neutral. They reward what we design them to reward and determine whether capital strengthens resilience, inclusion and local economies.
Moral ambition and good intentions don’t shift systems, levers do
Why values become meaningful only when they are translated into criteria, mechanisms and practical choices.
Procurement isn’t boring. It’s powerful.
How everyday purchasing decisions can become a lever for localisation, sustainability and systemic change.