The Great Depression was the period between 1929 - late 1930s, and the name fits for more than theatrical nomenclature. It described both the psychological state of people and the structural collapse of systems and organisations that had been assumed to be stable. Even more drearily, it saw livelihoods evaporate, social safety nets exposed as fragile or non-existent, and households forced into improvisation as a way of life. For businesses operating in that era, survival demanded a different kind of honesty as products could no longer be designed solely for their intended use because once they left the factory, they entered homes under extreme constraints and expectations.
Resultantly, the value and success of products became dependent on how effectively they integrated into the lived realities of customers navigating the ‘depressive’ economy.
This is why one particular story from that period has become a staple innovation analogy of mine.
The Kansas wheat company in the U.S.A observed that families were repurposing flour sacks to sew clothes for their children. Instead of ignoring this behaviour, they leaned into it, redesigning their flour sacks with beautiful design prints. That decision blended sociocultural awareness and business pragmatism. It acknowledged dignity, reduced waste, strengthened brand loyalty, and embedded value into a product that was already indispensable, thereby reinforcing impact and profit through design.
That, to me, is the simplest way to explain what we call embedded impact systems for products at Gumi.
Gumi’s embedded impact entails pre-meditatively designing anything that will come into contact with diverse groups of people in such a way that each interaction creates value for each group, while still serving the core intent of the organisation. It is strategically blending business logic with social development without forcing either to pretend they are the other.
To understand why this matters so much, it helps to look at an unlikely example.
Have you ever wondered why people do not typically ‘recommend’ their favourite ‘blockbuster’ pornography to family and friends?
It is not because people do not consume it. They do, in staggering numbers. In fact, according to Skyquest, the Global Adult Entertainment market size is set to grow from USD 66.05 Billion in 2025 to USD 112.64 billion by 2033, growing at a CAGR of 6.9% during the 2026-2033 forecast period.
This is an industry without structured referral systems or a reliable public “Trust Pilot” rating system. People do not advocate for pornography because recommending it does not add positive points to their identity; rather, it often subtracts from it…which begs the question, why does pornography sell so much?
My theory is that sustainable product success is propagated by the infusion of either of two things;
Physiological addiction, as in the case of pornography, or
Human self-image engineering. i.e. what association with a product does for how people see themselves and how they believe others will see them.
So, except you’re selling something that would leverage physiological addiction, your best bet is image engineering which is the most common form of embedded impact; it banks on the psychological premise that people buy, recommend, and champion things that enhance their self-image. Humans are inherently motivated by esteem and self-actualisation, a reality Maslow’s hierarchy articulated decades ago, and behavioural science continues to validate.
Customers, in particular, are profoundly self-referential.
From years of working directly with target audiences across sectors, I can say with confidence that beneath price haggling and feature comparisons, people would pay and advocate for what serves them psychologically and socially, even if it’s functionally bullsh*t.
Does associating with your product make someone appear informed, proactive, socially conscious, or competent? If it does, resistance drops dramatically.
Why?
Because the story people tell about your product is always, in some form, a story they are telling about themselves.
This is why effective embedded impact innovation for a product is about engineering conditions that allow people to insert themselves into your story naturally; one that ensures you are not asking them to do you a favour by talking about your product or programme, but rather you are giving them a reason to do so because it aligns with their own identity.
We see this principle play out constantly. e-Learning platforms that allow shareable digital certificates spread because posting them signals self-investment and growth, not because learners feel obligated to validate a platform. Biodegradable tote bags sell not only because people have a surplus of concern for sustainable fashion, but also because they allow people to perform environmental responsibility publicly.
Now, while businesses are increasingly scrutinised for their impact credentials, systems built explicitly for social development often escape the same level of design interrogation. Hence, the more uncomfortable question is what embedded impact means for systems that already exist to do good…systems like philanthropy.
The embedded impact logic becomes even more critical when we turn to philanthropy and the development sector because it functions as the most digestible philanthrocapitalism pill. It introduces structure, discipline, and intentionality into social development without reducing it to crude financial transactionality.
In this context, Return on Donation (ROD) emerges as a necessary counterpart to Return on Investment (ROI), not because philanthropy should behave like markets, but because, without structure, donated capital risks becoming free money that weakens agency rather than strengthening it.
For instance, donating emergency tents that double as market stalls or grain sacks that double as tool bags are scaffold interventions that:
Creates measurable secondary benefits.
Make beneficiary agency visible and trackable, which inadvertently allows donors to quantify the additional life value created from the same dollar.
Embedded impact systems in development are centered around beneficiary self-activation and self-agency, not as a moral test, nor a burden, but as a foundation for long-term resilience. It stems from the premise that relief that does not transition into recovery, and recovery that does not open pathways to systemic change, inevitably collapses back into need.
Gumi’s Embedded Impact Design Strategy is built on a deliberately simple but rigorous three-part formula.
Impact must be embedded with a specific mechanism or solution, such as snowball advocacy, asset repurposing, or peer-led diffusion.
Impact must be embedded for a clearly defined group, whether rural housewives, informal traders, displaced populations, or first-time users.
Impact must be embedded to ensure a concrete outcome, such as community-led advocacy, reduced churn, livelihood creation, or behavioural shift.
This formula forces difficult but necessary product and program design decisions. It prevents vague impact claims and emotional validation from replacing real outcomes, allowing both for-profit and non-profit organisations to view impact not as a separate moral activity, but as an integrated system that strengthens sustainability, credibility, and scale.
So ask yourself
What impact frameworks are you embedding in your product or programme?
Who are those impact frameworks intentionally embedded for? And how can you reach them?
What measurable outcomes would the impact frameworks ensure, beyond good intentions?
If these questions are not answered at the design stage, they will surface later as adoption problems, trust deficits, dependency cycles, or accusations of reputation laundering. If they are answered early, impact stops being something you chase and becomes something your system produces naturally.
About the Author
Hadiza Mohammed leads Impact Innovation at Gumi & Company, an innovation enablement firm that partners with funders and the ventures they support to design models, strategies, and systems that align business viability with social transformation.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.