FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS REPORT Responsible Innovation and Scaling in CGIAR Instruments June 2025 Helen J. Altshul Consultant, PPU/CGIAR System Organization 1 Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 3 2. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Scope of Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Audience ............................................................................................................................................. 5 3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................ 6 4. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS .................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Responsible Innovation ....................................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Responsible Scaling ............................................................................................................................. 7 4.3 Comparison of Responsible Innovation and Responsible Scaling ....................................................... 8 5. ANALYSIS OF CGIAR INSTRUMENTS .......................................................................................................... 9 5.1 Technical Reporting Arrangement (TRA) ........................................................................................... 10 5.2 Performance and Results Management Framework (PRMF) ............................................................ 10 5.3 Innovation Portfolio Management (IPM) .......................................................................................... 10 5.4 Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness (IPSR) ........................................................................... 10 5.5 GenderUp .......................................................................................................................................... 10 5.6 Scaling Scan ....................................................................................................................................... 11 5.7 Six-Step Approach for Scaling Low-Emission Food Systems .............................................................. 11 6. CROSS-CUTTING INSIGHTS ...................................................................................................................... 11 6.1 Strengths and Emerging Practices ..................................................................................................... 12 6.2 Gaps and Areas for Strengthening .................................................................................................... 12 6.3 Trends and Integration Opportunities ............................................................................................... 13 7. INTERNAL INTEGRATION ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 14 7.1 Integration Heatmap and Matrix ...................................................................................................... 14 7.2 Summary of opportunities for integration ........................................................................................ 15 8. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 15 ANNEX A – DETAILED ASSESSMENT TABLES FOR RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION AND SCALING ..................... 18 A1. Assessment of CGIAR Instruments Against Dimensions of Responsible Innovation ........................ 18 A2: Assessment of CGIAR Instruments Against Principles of Responsible Scaling.................................. 18 ANNEX B: DETAILED CGIAR INSTRUMENT REVIEW TABLES ......................................................................... 19 B1. Technical Reporting Arrangement (TRA) ........................................................................................... 19 B2. Performance and Results Management Framework (PRMF) ........................................................... 21 2 B3. Innovation Portfolio Management (IPM) .......................................................................................... 24 B4. Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness (IPSR) ........................................................................... 26 B5. GenderUp .......................................................................................................................................... 28 B6. Scaling Scan ....................................................................................................................................... 30 B7. Six-step Approach for Scaling Low-Emission Food Systems .............................................................. 32 ANNEX C: RESOURCES USED FOR FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 34 ANNEX D: GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED ........................................................................................................ 36 ANNEX E: DRAFT INTEGRATION PROMPTS ................................................................................................. 38 E1: Instrument Pairing Prompts .............................................................................................................. 38 E2: General Integration Questions .......................................................................................................... 38 3 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report assesses the extent to which CGIAR instruments, including frameworks, methodologies, and operational tools, incorporate dimensions of responsible innovation and principles of inclusive, equitable scaling. It was commissioned to provide a structured baseline, inform future integration efforts, and strengthen the CGIAR’s ability to deliver impact that is not only measurable but also ethical, just, and contextually responsive. It includes an introduction to the purpose and scope of the assessment, the conceptual frameworks underpinning it, a review of selected CGIAR instruments, cross-cutting insights, an internal integration analysis, and concluding recommendations. The analysis draws on internationally recognized frameworks for Responsible Innovation and Responsible Scaling, adapted through recent CGIAR discussions. It applies six key dimensions for responsible innovation (anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, responsiveness, legitimacy, and knowledge) and four principles for responsible scaling (social differentiation, power and inclusion, institutional fit, and adaptive learning). Seven CGIAR instruments were included in the review: two institutional frameworks (the Technical Reporting Arrangement (TRA) and the Performance and Results Management Framework (PRMF)); two methodologies (Innovation Portfolio Management (IPM) and Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness (IPSR)); and three operational tools (GenderUp, the Scaling Scan, and the Six-step Approach for Scaling Low-Emission Food Systems). Key findings include: • Responsible innovation dimensions and responsible scaling principles are only partially embedded across CGIAR instruments. Some instruments (notably IPSR, widely recognized as a central platform for scaling efforts within the CGIAR, GenderUp, and the Scaling Scan) demonstrate strong alignment with ethical and equity-focused dimensions and principles, while others (TRA and PRMF) are more technical or reporting-oriented and lack prompts on inclusion, legitimacy, or reflexivity. • IPSR’s central role is based on both its analytical scope and its recognized function within CGIAR systems. It acts as a modular platform, with different components managed across teams. There is strong interest in enhancing its contribution to inclusive and responsible scaling, and the report proposes an “IPSR+” model, not as a new tool, but as an evolution of current practice. This model would strengthen attention to social differentiation beyond gender, environmental sustainability, power dynamics, and legitimacy, through practical, stage-appropriate prompts to guide teams without creating undue burden or requiring substantial new reporting structures. • Social inclusion efforts to date have focused mainly on gender, with limited attention to other dimensions such as age, disability, and socio-economic status. Participation and power dynamics are rarely surfaced unless external facilitation is conducted. • The CGIAR’s innovation and reporting architecture remains fragmented. Strategic, diagnostic, and reporting instruments often operate in silos, limiting interoperability across purpose, user logic, and data flows. This limits the ability to track, learn from, and respond to inclusive innovation and scaling challenges. • Encouragingly, many of the CGIAR instruments are evolving. Recent refinements, particularly to GenderUp and the Six-step Approach, point to increasing momentum toward more participatory, reflective, and equity-aware methods. • Recognizing that changes to existing systems require significant investment of time, effort, and political capital, this report also highlights low-cost, high-impact opportunities to enhance inclusion, legitimacy, and reflexivity. These include revised prompts, tag-in modules, and selective adaptation of existing checklists, options that could be explored without requiring system-wide reform. 4 The report concludes by proposing an IPSR+ approach as a unifying thread across the innovation ecosystem, recognizing IPSR’s centrality but integrating broader consideration of responsibility, inclusion, and systems thinking. It also identifies specific integration opportunities (e.g., IPSR + GenderUp, IPM + Scaling Scan) that could help CGIAR move toward a more coherent, adaptive, and values-aligned toolkit. The next phase of this consultancy will expand the analysis by benchmarking global frameworks and tools, and by drawing on consultations with CGIAR staff and partners to inform a practical roadmap for strategic alignment. This will include concrete integration opportunities and potential pathways for how Scaling for Impact and other teams could take forward the findings, including quick wins and options for deeper adaptation. Together, these efforts aim to help the CGIAR not only scale more innovations but scale them more responsibly, embedding anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, legitimacy, and adaptive learning into agricultural research for development to deliver ethical, inclusive, and context-sensitive impact at scale. 5 2. INTRODUCTION This report provides an assessment of the extent to which CGIAR instruments incorporate dimensions of responsible innovation and principles of inclusive, equitable scaling. As the CGIAR continues to refine its approach to delivering impact through innovation, there is growing recognition of the need to align internal instruments with globally recognized standards that promote ethical, sustainable, and socially responsive outcomes. For the purposes of this review, the term instrument is used broadly to refer to a diverse set of CGIAR- developed frameworks, methodologies, and operational tools that support responsible innovation and scaling, including strategic frameworks, reporting systems, participatory methods, and diagnostic approaches. This includes institutional frameworks such as the Performance and Results Management Framework (PRMF) and the Technical Reporting Arrangement (TRA); structured methodologies such as Innovation Portfolio Management (IPM) and Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness (IPSR); and applied tools such as GenderUp, the Scaling Scan, and the Six-step Approach. The analysis draws on internationally recognized frameworks for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and Responsible Scaling, adapted based on recent thinking and workshop processes within the CGIAR. Six dimensions were used to assess responsible innovation: anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, responsiveness, legitimacy, and knowledge. Responsible scaling was analysed using four core principles: social differentiation, power and inclusion, institutional fit, and adaptive learning. 2.1 Scope of Analysis This report covers seven CGIAR instruments: the Technical Reporting Arrangement (TRA); the Performance and Results Management Framework (PRMF); Innovation Portfolio Management (IPM); Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness (IPSR); GenderUp; the Scaling Scan; and the newly published Six-step Approach for Scaling Low-Emission Food Systems. TRA and PRMF are treated as institutional frameworks, while the remainder are considered operational methodologies or operational tools. IPSR is recognized as a central platform within CGIAR’s innovation and scaling architecture. Its centrality is based not only on its assessment profile but also on consultation feedback from CGIAR staff. While reviewed here as one of the instruments, IPSR functions more broadly as a modular methodology supporting innovation packaging, scaling readiness, and system-level alignment. Future phases of this work will extend the analysis to include selected global frameworks (e.g., from EU, GIZ, IDRC, and Wageningen University and Research) and incorporate findings from consultations with CGIAR scientists and partners. 2.2 Audience The primary audience for this report includes CGIAR’s Portfolio Performance Unit (PPU), the Scaling for Impact team, and colleagues working across MEL, innovation, and delivery portfolios. It is also relevant for gender and inclusion scientists and other cross-cutting specialists who contribute to shaping responsible innovation and scaling approaches within the CGIAR. The report is intended to support ongoing efforts to enhance strategic alignment, promote learning across instruments, and embed dimensions and principles of responsibility and inclusion into CGIAR’s innovation ecosystem. 6 3. METHODOLOGY This analysis was conducted through a structured desk review of seven key CGIAR instruments, selected based on their relevance to responsible innovation and/or scaling processes. The review was guided by an analytical framework based on internationally recognized principles of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and Responsible Scaling, adapted through recent CGIAR-Wageningen University and Research (WUR) workshop discussions. Two distinct but complementary sets of dimensions and principles were used: • Responsible Innovation (dimensions) – Anticipation, Inclusion, Reflexivity, Responsiveness, Legitimacy, and Knowledge; • Responsible Scaling (principles) – Social Differentiation, Power and Inclusion, Institutional Fit, and Adaptive Learning. Each instrument was reviewed against a common structure and coded for its inclusion (explicit or implicit) of these dimensions and principles. Instruments were also compared in terms of their operational guidance, user base, approach to scaling, and current use within the CGIAR. Outputs of this analysis include: • Comparative summary tables for each instrument; • A synthesis of cross-cutting strengths, gaps, and emerging trends; • An integration heatmap and matrix identifying opportunities for alignment; • A set of preliminary recommendations to support future alignment and responsible scaling strategies. This analysis informed subsequent phases of the responsible innovation and scaling consultancy, including benchmarking against global frameworks, stakeholder consultations, and the development of the Integration Guidance and Strategic Alignment Proposal. Generative AI (OpenAI’s ChatGPT) was used to support synthesis, improve readability, and organize comparative summaries during the desk review process. It was not used to analyze content or draw conclusions. All interpretation, framework application, and final content decisions were made by the consultant, in line with ILRI guidance on the use of AI in research1. 1 ILRI (2023). Guidelines for use of generative artificial intelligence in research. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/130986 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/130986 7 4. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS This section outlines the core concepts and assessment criteria used in the analysis, drawing on the literature on Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), the emerging field of Responsible Scaling, and recent developments in CGIAR strategy. The frameworks presented here reflect a shift from linear “scaling up” logics to more nuanced, systems-aware, equity-oriented, and anticipatory approaches to innovation and impact. 4.1 Responsible Innovation The core concept of Responsible Innovation is that the process of innovation development should be not only effective but also ethically acceptable, sustainable, socially desirable, and inclusive. The EU’s RRI framework defines it as “a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other regarding the ethical acceptability, sustainability, and social desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products”. Beyond technical performance, RRI addresses concerns about legitimacy, inclusivity, and ethical risk, recognizing that even well-intentioned innovations can have unanticipated or inequitable consequences. Other common themes in the literature include gender and diversity considerations, open access and transparency, and public engagement and accountability. For this report, each of the CGIAR instruments was assessed against six dimensions of responsible innovation, the first 4 from the EU RRI framework, and the last two introduced by Cees Leeuwis of Wageningen University & Research (WUR) in the context of CGIAR discussions: 1. Anticipation – What could happen? (scenario thinking, foresight); 2. Inclusion – Who is involved or excluded? (diverse stakeholder engagement); 3. Reflexivity – Are we asking the right questions? (surfacing assumptions); 4. Responsiveness – Are we adapting as we go? (course correction mechanisms); 5. Legitimacy – Who’s making decisions, and how? (governance, procedural fairness); 6. Knowledge – Whose evidence counts? (integration of diverse information). A full assessment of each CGIAR instrument against these principles is provided in Annex A1, with summary insights given in Section 5. 4.2 Responsible Scaling Responsible Scaling is a relatively newer concept that responds to criticism of linear or technocratic scaling-up models, which prioritize replication over responsiveness, or growth over equity. It challenges the idea that scaling is all about “going bigger” and instead emphasizes systems thinking, intentionality, and sensitivity to local contexts and social dynamics. Emerging concepts include equitable scaling (focusing on addressing rather than reinforcing inequalities and power dynamics) and safe-to-fail scaling (prioritizing iteration and learning over speed or top-down models). The analysis in this report drew on four guiding principles based on work done by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) in Canada and WUR: 1. Social Differentiation – How does scaling affect different groups? (e.g., gender, class, age, disability) 2. Power and Inclusion – Are the most marginalized benefiting or being further excluded? 3. Institutional Fit – Do innovations align with local norms, capacities, and governance systems? 4. Adaptive Learning – Are we learning and adjusting scaling pathways over time based on local feedback? 8 The assessment focused not on what is scaled but on how and why, taking into account risks of exclusion and environmental degradation. Instrument-level ratings are provided in Annex A1 and Annex A2, and cross-cutting themes are discussed in Section 6. 4.3 Comparison of Responsible Innovation and Responsible Scaling Table 1 below provides a comparative overview of the two conceptual frameworks, outlining their definitions, core elements (dimensions or principles), strengths, and common implementation challenges. Together, the two frameworks provide complementary lenses. Responsible innovation shapes what and how we innovate, while responsible scaling focuses on how and where those innovations are adopted, and by whom. This dual lens supports a shift from merely aiming for ‘impact at scale’ to ensuring ‘equitable impact through scaling,’ aligning with the CGIAR’s 2030 Research and Innovation Strategy and global commitments such as the SDGs. This framing reinforces why IPSR, as a central methodology supporting innovation packaging and scaling readiness, plays a critical role in operationalising these principles across the CGIAR. Table 1: Comparative Overview of the Conceptual Frameworks Approach Definition Core Elements Strengths Gaps or Challenges Responsible Innovation • Innovation that is ethically acceptable, sustainable, and socially desirable, developed through inclusive and reflexive processes • Anticipation • Inclusion • Reflexivity • Responsiveness • Legitimacy • Knowledge • Holistic framework • Promotes inclusive innovation • Can be abstract • Limited guidance available on implementation in LMICs Responsible Scaling • Scaling processes that are equitable, context-sensitive, and inclusive of marginalized groups • Social differentiation • Power/Inclusion • Institutional fit • Adaptive learning • Promotes equity in practice • Supports context-specific strategies • Less attention to operational tools • Harder to operationalize within standard MEL frameworks Together, these frameworks provide complementary perspectives that highlight both the opportunities and challenges of embedding responsibility into innovation and scaling. The following section applies these dimensions and principles to CGIAR instruments to identify strengths, gaps, and areas for alignment. 9 5. ANALYSIS OF CGIAR INSTRUMENTS Each of the seven instruments reviewed contributes in different ways to the implementation of responsible innovation dimensions and responsible scaling principles within the CGIAR system. The analysis considered their objectives, operational features, approach to scaling, and the extent to which they reflect the six dimensions of responsible innovation and the four principles of responsible scaling. Table 2 summarizes the primary purpose of each instrument, and Table 3 shows the overall alignment of each instrument with the two frameworks. The following summaries highlight the alignment of each instrument with the analytical criteria outlined in Section 4, as well as any notable strengths or limitations. Full details of the analysis are provided in Annex B. Table 2: Description of CGIAR Instruments Reviewed INSTRUMENT DESCRIPTION/PURPOSE TRA – Technical Reporting Arrangement CGIAR’s institutional framework for structured reporting on program- and portfolio-level progress against the PRMF. PRMF – Performance and Results Management Framework The overarching framework guiding how CGIAR measures progress toward its 2030 Research and Innovation Strategy. IPM – Innovation Portfolio Management A strategic approach for selecting, tracking, and managing innovations across CGIAR to optimize scaling and impact. IPSR – Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness A structured methodology and platform for packaging innovations and assessing their scaling readiness and use levels. GenderUp A facilitated workshop tool to support innovation teams in developing socially inclusive, gender-responsive scaling strategies. Scaling Scan A participatory tool to assess scaling ambition, enabling conditions, and potential risks or bottlenecks. Six-step Approach A diagnostic tool to analyse the enabling environment for scaling innovations in specific country or system contexts. Table 3: Summary of CGIAR Instruments’ Alignment with Responsible Innovation and Scaling INSTRUMENT RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION ALIGNMENT RESPONSIBLE SCALING ALIGNMENT TRA ○ ○ PRMF ◐ ◐ IPM ◐ ◐ IPSR ● ● GenderUp ● ● Scaling Scan ● ● Six-step Approach ◐ ● Key ● Strong/explicit inclusion ◐ Partial/implicit inclusion or requires contextual application ○ Not evident or absent 10 5.1 Technical Reporting Arrangement (TRA) The TRA plays a central role in the CGIAR’s performance system, offering a standardized way to report progress at both initiative/program and portfolio levels. While it does not explicitly reflect principles of responsible innovation or scaling, there is some scope for inclusion and responsiveness through narrative sections. Its strength lies in systematizing results data, but it lacks prompts related to legitimacy, anticipation, or equity. TRA is best understood as a governance framework, not a planning or reflection instrument. 5.2 Performance and Results Management Framework (PRMF) The PRMF provides the overarching logic for how the CGIAR measures performance, with indirect references to inclusion, reflexivity, and adaptive learning through its emphasis on theory of change and Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) processes. However, it does not explicitly embed responsible innovation or equity principles across the framework. It serves as a governance framework for performance and alignment, but does not currently drive ethical or inclusive reflection. 5.3 Innovation Portfolio Management (IPM) IPM is one of the CGIAR’s newer strategic methodologies, designed to align innovation investments with system-level priorities. It reflects responsible innovation principles through inclusion, responsiveness, and, to some extent, reflexivity and knowledge (e.g. who uses and benefits from an innovation). Responsible scaling is supported through its use of stage-gating and prioritization logic, which helps ensure innovations move forward based on evidence, relevance, and alignment with system goals. However, legitimacy and social differentiation are not yet systematically embedded. IPM is particularly strong in enabling system- wide decision-making and portfolio coherence but is still evolving in terms of inclusion and equity mechanisms. 5.4 Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness (IPSR) IPSR is a structured methodology for bundling innovations and assessing their readiness and use at scale. It aligns well with responsible scaling principles, particularly institutional fit, adaptive learning, and power/inclusion, through its emphasis on enabling environments and complementary innovations. Responsible innovation is addressed through structured reporting on innovation users and usage, although ethical and legitimacy concerns are not always explicit. IPSR functions as a modular platform that connects packaging, readiness assessment, and evidence-based strategy across the CGIAR. Its main strength lies in its rigor and logic; its major limitation is the limited integration of end-user voices beyond partners and testers. Its central role was confirmed through consultation with CGIAR staff, even though the assessment itself identified areas for further strengthening. 5.5 GenderUp GenderUp is a facilitation-based participatory instrument that explicitly embeds principles of responsible innovation and responsible scaling. It incorporates all six innovation dimensions (anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, responsiveness, legitimacy, and knowledge) and all four scaling principles, including social differentiation and adaptive learning. Its strength lies in guiding innovation teams to anticipate unintended impacts, engage in reflexive discussions, and refine inclusive scaling strategies in practical terms. While GenderUp strongly supports gender inclusion, its coverage of other dimensions of social inclusion (e.g. age, disability, or socio-economic status) remains limited. Other challenges include accessibility in low- connectivity settings, the need for trained facilitators, and some usability issues with digital platforms (e.g., Miro). Nonetheless, GenderUp provides a clear bridge between the CGIAR’s inclusion goals and actionable support for scaling innovations more equitably. 11 5.6 Scaling Scan The Scaling Scan supports innovation teams and partners to assess scaling readiness and system-level enablers or bottlenecks to scaling. It strongly reflects responsible scaling principles, particularly adaptive learning, institutional fit, and inclusion, and partially supports responsible innovation through its emphasis on system dynamics and shared ownership. It is a useful diagnostic or entry point instrument, but it does not generate structured outputs or indicators for monitoring, and legitimacy is not addressed directly. It pairs well with IPSR or IPM as a complementary, participatory, and relatively light-touch method. 5.7 Six-Step Approach for Scaling Low-Emission Food Systems The Six-Step Approach provides a structured process to assess the enabling environment for scaling innovations, with a focus on context-specific constraints, actor alignment, and coordination. It aligns with responsible scaling elements such as institutional fit and adaptive learning, although social differentiation and inclusion are less central. The methodology is flexible and participatory, but requires skilled facilitation and local knowledge to be most effective. While not explicitly designed to be a responsible innovation instrument, it can strengthen upstream reflection on scaling risks and pathways, particularly in climate- related programs. Together, these instruments provide complementary strengths across reporting, portfolio management, and participatory design, but their gaps in legitimacy, equity, and reflexivity highlight the need for greater integration and adaptation to ensure that the CGIAR’s innovation system is both responsible and inclusive. 12 6. CROSS-CUTTING INSIGHTS The analysis of the seven CGIAR instruments through the lens of responsible innovation and scaling reveals important patterns, opportunities, and areas for improvement. While instruments were developed at different times and for distinct purposes, several cross-cutting insights have emerged. 6.1 Strengths and Emerging Practices • Growing alignment with global concepts: Several instruments exhibit partial or strong alignment with the key concepts of responsible innovation and scaling, particularly inclusion, adaptive learning, and institutional fit. Instruments like IPSR, GenderUp, and the Scaling Scan embed these most clearly. • Progress on gender inclusion: Gender considerations are increasingly mainstreamed, with GenderUp offering structured facilitation for reflection and adaptation. TRA includes gender indicators, and IPM tracks gender-related metrics at the innovation level. • Technical and strategic coherence: Instruments such as PRMF, IPM, and IPSR, which are robust and maturing, provide a strong technical foundation for tracking progress, supporting decision-making, and aligning initiatives with the CGIAR 2030 Research and Innovation Strategy. These instruments also reflect the structured use of innovation and scaling language and strong foundations in Theory of Change (ToC), stage-gating, and innovation systems. • Momentum toward participatory and reflexive approaches: Newer instruments, especially GenderUp and the Scaling Scan, reflect a shift toward participatory, anticipatory, and context-sensitive methods. These tools are designed to help teams surface unintended impacts and inclusion gaps, contributing to more responsive scaling strategies. There is also growing consistency around the CGIAR Impact Areas and SDG framing, which helps anchor participatory work in broader global commitments. 6.2 Gaps and Areas for Strengthening • Narrow focus on inclusion: Most of the instruments emphasize gender but give limited attention to other aspects of social differentiation, such as age, disability, or intersectionality. Tools that do reflect broader inclusion (e.g., GenderUp) remain underutilized. • Limited attention to legitimacy and knowledge diversity: Concepts such as who makes decisions (legitimacy) and whose evidence counts (knowledge) are largely absent from existing frameworks and reporting instruments, although they are addressed indirectly in the participatory tools, that is, those built around facilitated group processes, stakeholder engagement, or team reflection, rather than desk-based reporting or technical scoring (GenderUp, Scaling Scan, and the Six-step Approach). The IPSR methodology also addresses these dimensions to some extent, although it is not consistently reflexive. • Fragmentation across instruments: While the instruments collectively support innovation and scaling, they remain siloed in purpose, format, and user base. Reporting frameworks (TRA, PRMF) rarely interface with diagnostic or learning-oriented tools (GenderUp, Six-step Approach), limiting coherence across the innovation lifecycle. This fragmentation is particularly evident between strategy, diagnostics, and reporting functions, which currently lack strong connections. • Resource and usability challenges: Several tools (e.g. IPSR, GenderUp, Six-step Approach) are resource- intensive, requiring trained facilitators, additional time, or digital platforms, which may deter adoption across all teams or regions. Accessibility and simplification may be needed for wider use. • Limited explicit treatment of anticipation and reflexivity: These dimensions are often implied, for example through innovation scoring or narrative sections, but are not consistently named, prompted, or embedded in the design of most instruments. 13 6.3 Trends and Integration Opportunities • Strong foundations to build from: IPSR has played a central role in the CGIAR’s approach to responsible innovation and scaling, a role reinforced by staff input, strategic positioning, and the assessment findings. It functions as a modular platform that supports innovation packaging and scaling readiness across diverse contexts. Alongside IPM and PRMF, it contributes to strategic alignment and system- level tracking. Tools like GenderUp and the Scaling Scan are pushing the CGIAR toward participatory and equity-aware approaches. • Responsible scaling is more established than responsible innovation: Across instruments, scaling- related principles (institutional fit, adaptive learning) are more frequently and explicitly addressed than innovation-related ones (e.g., legitimacy, anticipation). • Opportunities for structured integration: Several instrument pairings show clear complementarity, including IPSR with GenderUp, and IPM with the Scaling Scan. Embedding simple prompts and creating shared learning loops could help bridge strategy, diagnostics, and reporting, and support a greater emphasis on equity and participatory methods. 14 7. INTERNAL INTEGRATION ANALYSIS This section presents a preliminary analysis of integration opportunities based solely on the seven internal CGIAR instruments reviewed in this phase. For example, IPM and IPSR share structural similarities, while GenderUp and the Scaling Scan offer complementary participatory methods. 7.1 Integration Heatmap and Matrix The assessment considered which of the CGIAR instruments can be used together to facilitate responsible innovation and scaling. Table 4 below shows the extent of integration of the different instruments, and Table 5 overleaf is a matrix summary of which instruments complement each other and why. Table 4: Integration of CGIAR Instruments TRA PRMF IPM IPSR Gender Up Scaling Scan Six-Step TRA — ● ● ● ◐ ○ ○ PRMF — ● ● ◐ ◐ ◐ IPM — ● ◐ ◐ ◐ IPSR — ● ● ◐ GenderUp — ● ◐ Scaling Scan — ● Six-Step — Key ● Strong integration potential: direct alignment in purpose, methods, or users. Can be combined with minimal effort. ◐ Complementary, but requires adaptation: overlaps exist, but integration is partial or needs contextual tailoring. ○ Weak or minimal integration: limited alignment in function, structure, or logic. Any linkage would be superficial or symbolic. Table 5: Matrix Summary of CGIAR Instrument Pairing INSTRUMENT INTEGRATES WITH RATIONALE TRA PRMF, IPM, IPSR Strong reporting backbone. Could be improved with data from innovation tools (IPSR, IPM), but has minimal structural overlap with strategic diagnostics like the Six-step Approach. PRMF IPM, IPSR Serves as a central performance framework. Data flows from IPM and innovation-level instruments can feed into results cycles. Also has partial complementarity with participatory tools (GenderUp, Scaling Scan, Six-step), though integration requires adaptation. IPM PRMF, IPSR Designed to manage innovation portfolios. Gains depth from IPSR metrics and high-level alignment with PRMF, but integration with reflection tools is more conceptual. 15 IPSR GenderUp, Scaling Scan Can be strengthened by embedding social dimensions and diagnostics, especially for readiness and use assessment. It can also benefit from upstream alignment with the Six-step Approach, though integration is more contextual. GenderUp IPSR, Scaling Scan Offers qualitative value, but requires embedding into other instruments’ processes. Limited direct integration with TRA without template revision. It also shares some complementarity with the Six-step Approach, particularly in participatory design and reflection. Scaling Scan IPSR, GenderUp, Six-step Approach Effective for reflection and diagnostic use, especially early in scaling. It also pairs well with the Six-step Approach for upstream context analysis. Less aligned with high-level portfolio systems unless deliberately linked. Six-step Approach IPSR, Scaling Scan Strong for upstream strategy and context analysis. It also shows complementarity with GenderUp in participatory approaches. Has value for design and alignment, but no clear structural overlap with results reporting (TRA). 7.2 Summary of opportunities for integration The seven instruments reviewed in this analysis reflect the evolving priorities, operational contexts, and conceptual frameworks of the CGIAR over time. Developed for different purposes, from technical reporting and performance management to innovation scaling and social inclusion, their integration potential varies significantly, depending on design purpose, operational entry point, and user focus. Some instruments, such as the Performance and Results Management Framework (PRMF) and Innovation Portfolio Management (IPM), form the structural backbone for the CGIAR’s results architecture and portfolio oversight. Others, like Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness (IPSR), GenderUp, and the Scaling Scan, offer diagnostic depth, inclusion lenses, and participatory methodologies that can complement decision- making but require deliberate adaptation to fit within system-level processes. While certain combinations (e.g., PRMF + IPM; IPSR + GenderUp; IPSR + Scaling Scan; Scaling Scan + Six- step) present strong alignment and natural interoperability, others, such as the pairing of TRA with more strategic or diagnostic instruments, reveal minimal overlap in structure or user logic. Partial complementarity is also evident between the PRMF and participatory tools (GenderUp, Scaling Scan, Six- step), and between GenderUp and the Six-step Approach, where integration is feasible but requires adaptation. This reflects the reality that instruments have been developed at different times, with different scopes and entry points. Responsible scaling and inclusive innovation have become increasingly central in recent years, but are not yet systematically embedded across all instruments. The goal is not to merge instruments into a single system but to enable synergy, with IPSR+ positioned as a central platform through shared prompts, aligned indicators, interoperable data structures, and sequencing that reflects the stages of innovation and scaling. Taken together, these integration opportunities provide a foundation for building greater coherence and responsibility across the CGIAR’s innovation and scaling architecture, setting the stage for more systematic alignment in future phases of work. 16 8. CONCLUSION This review finds that individual CGIAR instruments make important contributions to the development, management, packaging, and scaling of innovations, but they are not yet integrated into a coherent ecosystem that systematically embeds the dimensions of responsible innovation and principles of responsible scaling. Inclusion, anticipation, and learning are increasingly visible, but they are not yet embedded across all instruments or stages. Dimensions such as legitimacy, social differentiation beyond gender, and knowledge diversity remain inconsistently addressed. Across the portfolio, one instrument stands out as foundational: Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness (IPSR). IPSR provides a robust structure for diagnosing readiness and use, identifying enabling conditions, and packaging interdependent innovations. Other instruments play important roles. Tools like GenderUp, the Scaling Scan, and the Six-step Approach contribute participatory methods and reflexive practice, helping teams anticipate unintended impacts and improve inclusion strategies. IPM, PRMF, and TRA support portfolio-level strategy, performance, and reporting, but without better integration across purpose, data flows, and feedback loops, these instruments risk operating in silos. This review confirms that IPSR has played a central role in the CGIAR’s innovation and scaling efforts, not solely because of its assessment performance, but due to its established system role. Building on this foundation, the report suggests an IPSR+ approach; not as a replacement or new tool, but as an evolution of current practice; that could help strengthen attention to: • Social differentiation beyond gender, including age, disability, and socio-economic status; • Environmental sustainability and climate risk, integrated throughout the innovation process; • Power dynamics, ethics, and legitimacy, especially during innovation packaging and scaling readiness stages; • Usability, through practical prompts, stage-appropriate questions, and adaptation to different innovation types, from farmer-facing tools to policy interventions. This would not require fundamental system changes, but rather modest adaptations that enable more reflective, inclusive, and user-friendly decision-making. Prompts are intended to support teams, not burden them, and can be tailored to the maturity, scope, and ambition of each innovation. Responsible innovation and scaling must be seen as a shared commitment across instruments and teams. Several of the instruments reviewed, notably GenderUp, IPSR, and the Scaling Scan, already embody participatory, reflective, and equity-aware approaches that could be more fully institutionalized. Others, such as the Technical Reporting Arrangement (TRA) and Performance and Results Management Framework (PRMF), could be refined to support the CGIAR’s ambition to deliver measurable impact in ways that are also just, inclusive, and contextually grounded. Encouragingly, many instruments are evolving. The integration heatmap and synthesis presented here show clear complementarities across methods and entry points. With intentional design choices, the CGIAR can move toward a more interoperable and values-aligned toolkit, where technical processes and inclusion strategies reinforce one another across the innovation lifecycle. Integration does not mean uniformity. Instead, it requires alignment through shared language, prompts, data flows, learning loops, and clear roles for both technical and participatory methods. Ultimately, responsible innovation and scaling will depend on consistent framing, stage-appropriate guidance, and a culture of adaptive learning that allows the CGIAR to deliver impact that is not only measurable but also ethical, inclusive, and context- sensitive. 17 As the CGIAR continues to shape its innovation and scaling architecture, this analysis provides a baseline and reference point. The next phase of this Responsible Innovation and Scaling consultancy will explore global good practice frameworks and consult CGIAR staff and partners to identify cross-learning opportunities and develop a practical roadmap for strategic alignment. Consultations will also examine how key dimensions such as power, environmental risk, and deeper social inclusion can be incorporated at appropriate stages of the innovation process. The opportunity is not just to scale a larger number of innovations, but to scale more responsibly, embedding legitimacy, anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, and adaptive learning at the heart of agricultural research for development. Responsible innovation and scaling can act as a unifying thread across the CGIAR’s instruments and systems. Rather than proposing major structural shifts, this review highlights opportunities to build on and adapt what is already in place. Positioning IPSR+ as a central anchor within a wider, evolving ecosystem, future integration could focus on aligning indicator frameworks, embedding stage-appropriate prompts into planning and reporting cycles, and creating pathways that connect technical systems with participatory methods. The goal is not to replace any single instrument, but to build complementary linkages that recognize each instrument’s unique strengths while addressing current fragmentation. This flexible and modular approach would enable coherence across the system while leaving space for diversity, iteration, and contextual adaptation, and support a more coherent, inclusive, and adaptive approach to innovation and scaling across CGIAR research centers and their partners. 18 ANNEXES ANNEX A – DETAILED ASSESSMENT TABLES FOR RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION AND SCALING Key ● Strong/explicit inclusion ◐ Partial/implicit or requires contextual application ○ Not evident or absent A1. Assessment of CGIAR Instruments Against Dimensions of Responsible Innovation INSTRUMENT ▼ \ DIMENSION ▶ ANTICIPA- TION INCLUSION REFLEXIVITY RESPONSIVE- NESS LEGITIMACY KNOWLEDGE TRA ◐ ◐1 ◐2 ○ ○ ○ PRMF ◐ ◐ ◐3 ● ○ ◐ IPM ● ● ◐ ● ◐ ◐ IPSR ● ◐ ● ● ◐ ◐ GenderUp ● ● ● ● ● ● Scaling Scan ● ● ● ◐ ◐ ◐ Six-step Approach ◐ ◐ ◐ ◐ ○ ○ Notes 1 Gender only 2 Via Pause and Reflect sessions 3 Via Theory of Change A2: Assessment of CGIAR Instruments Against Principles of Responsible Scaling INSTRUMENT ▼ \ PRINCIPLE ▶ SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION POWER & INCLUSION INSTITUTIONAL FIT ADAPTIVE LEARNING TRA ◐ ○ ○ ◐1 PRMF ◐ ◐ ◐ ● IPM ◐ ◐ ◐ ● IPSR ● ● ● ● GenderUp ● ● ◐ ● Scaling Scan ● ● ● ● Six-step Approach ◐ ◐ ● ● Notes 1 Via Pause and Reflect sessions 2 GenderUp helps surface institutional norms and power dynamics during participatory workshops, but it does not explicitly assess alignment with formal governance systems or institutional capacities. 19 ANNEX B: DETAILED CGIAR INSTRUMENT REVIEW TABLES B1. Technical Reporting Arrangement (TRA) ASPECT DETAILS Objective/Purpose • Common reporting parameters to measure achievement against the CGIAR Results Framework and the planned results of the Portfolio and individual Initiatives/Programs. Key Features/ Components • Three Report Types: Type 1 (annual, Initiative-level), Type 2 (every 3 years, Portfolio-level), and Type 3 (annual, Portfolio-level). • Online dashboard and downloadable narrative PDF reports. • Alignment with Initiative Theories of Change and CGIAR Results Framework. • Adaptive management and learning ("report–reflect–plan" cycle), although structured reflection on social inclusion and equity is limited. Key Terms/Concepts Used • Action Areas, Impact Areas • Indicators, Results (outputs, outcomes, impacts) • Innovation Packages • Scaling Readiness • Adaptive Management Intended Users • Initiative/Program Managers/teams • Science Group Directors • MELIA staff • CGIAR System Organization • CGIAR System Council Definition/ Understanding of Responsible Innovation • Innovation packages are context, outcome, and user-group specific. • Scaling pathways identified but focus often on early stage (testers not adopters). • Quality data on uptake/adoption may require dedicated studies which are not systematically funded. Definition/ Understanding of Responsible Scaling • Scaling Readiness is integrated, highlighting readiness/use pathways. • Shared bottlenecks and opportunities are tracked. • Ex-post impact assessments planned for later cycles, ideally conducted jointly across Initiatives/Programs at country level. Inclusion of Responsible Innovation • Gender is the most consistently reported inclusion dimension. • Broader inclusion (e.g. youth, marginalized groups) is mentioned but not structurally embedded in report templates. Inclusion of Responsible Scaling • Inclusion is implicit rather than systematically tracked. • Reports may reference gender inclusion in innovation use or partnerships, but there is no structured requirement to disaggregate scaling results by social group (e.g. youth, marginalized groups). • Country-level ex-post impact assessments are encouraged, which could provide insights into equity-related outcomes, but these are not a required element of the annual or 3-year reporting types. • Reporting templates do not include prompts or fields for reflecting on who benefits from scaling, nor on scaling risks related to inequality or exclusion. Approach to Scaling • Evidence-based strategies using Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness. 20 • Scaling ambition co-created and monitored. • Readiness and use dimensions tracked. • Narrative on implementation partner engagement. Operational Guidance • Detailed guidance per report type, including templates, timing, quality criteria, adaptive learning cycle, and illustrative examples. Strengths/Good Practice • Harmonized framework across all Initiatives. • Clear templates and timing for adaptive management. • Aggregation to the Portfolio level enables learning and coherence. • Integrated dashboards and results storytelling elements. • Quality-assessed data with a defined Likert scale for progress. Gaps/Limitations • Emphasis on quantitative over qualitative data. • Limited space for critical reflection or inclusion beyond gender. • Reporting may focus on deliverables over development processes or user perspectives Opportunities for Integration • Introduce participatory reporting elements. • Expand the scope of responsible innovation beyond gender. • Integrate a structured space for partner and community voice. • Strengthen the link between Innovation Packages and social equity outcomes. • Embed responsible scaling considerations more consistently. • Leverage IPSR metrics (e.g. readiness and use) better to strengthen innovation-related reporting. • Integrate GenderUp-style reflection prompts into narrative sections to surface inclusion and equity insights. • Align scaling outcome indicators with IPM dashboards to ensure consistency from reporting to decision-making. Notes/Observations • The reporting system is solid for standardization and aggregation but needs strengthening in how it incorporates inclusion, power dynamics, and the responsible uptake of innovations. Greater narrative depth and participatory input could increase relevance and learning. 21 B2. Performance and Results Management Framework (PRMF) ASPECT DETAILS Objective/Purpose • Support delivery of the CGIAR 2030 Research and Innovation Strategy through a fit-for-purpose system that enables learning, accountability, adaptive management, and communication of impact across the CGIAR and to partners and funders Key Features/ Components • Streamlined results architecture aligned to SDGs. • Performance management approach based on stage-gates. • Innovation systems and impact pathways. • Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness (IPSR). • Use of Theory of Change at Initiative/component levels. • Results indicators across outputs, outcomes, and impacts. • Portfolio dashboard and Performance and Results Management System (PRMS) with CGIAR Level Agricultural Results Interoperable System Architecture (CLARISA) interoperability2. • Developed with inputs from the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Community of Practice (MELCOP) Steering Committee and other system actors during the transition period3. Key Terms/Concepts Used • Theory of Change • Impact Pathways • Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness (IPSR) • Stage-Gates • Spheres of Control/Influence/Interest • Quality of Research for Development (QoR4D) • Common Impact Indicators Intended Users • CGIAR Initiative Teams • Science Group Directors • MELIA staff • Scaling Partners • National Research Institutions • CGIAR System Organization • CGIAR System Council • Funders Definition/ Understanding of Responsible Innovation • Embedded in QoR4D principles (relevance, credibility, legitimacy, effectiveness). • Innovation is viewed as a system-level interaction of technology, policy, and capacity development tailored to users and context. • Innovation packages are used to chart clear, testable pathways to impact. Definition/ Understanding of Responsible Scaling • Through Scaling Readiness, which assesses both innovation readiness and use. • Promotes co-development, risk awareness, and context-specific adaptation. 2 CLARISA was envisioned as the central data platform for the PRMS, but is no longer in use as a reporting tool in the 2025 cycle. Elements of its architecture may persist, but data entry and reporting have shifted to newer systems aligned with updated reporting requirements. 3 The MELCOP no longer exists as a formal system-wide CGIAR structure. 22 • Embedded in stage-gate decision-making to prioritize scalable and equitable outcomes. Inclusion of Responsible Innovation • Mostly implicit via QoR4D and Theory of Change assumptions. • Gender inclusion is tracked explicitly, but broader inclusion dimensions (e.g. youth, marginalized groups) are not systematically embedded in reporting architecture. Inclusion of Responsible Scaling • Some indicators (e.g. gender gap in innovation adoption, innovation codesigned with youth) reflect inclusive scaling. • Systematic tracking of who benefits from scaling (across social groups) is limited. Approach to Scaling • Framed within innovation systems and Scaling Readiness. • Scaling is planned through ToCs and stage-gated via evidence of readiness and use. • Supported by innovation metrics and multi-stakeholder engagement. Operational Guidance • Detailed operational features laid out through the PRMF, Results Framework, Stage-Gate criteria, and ToC templates. • Linked to CLARISA and the IATI data standard. • Guidance is aligned with MELCoP practices Strengths/Good Practice • Holistic innovation systems approach. • Alignment with SDGs and CGIAR Impact Areas. • Robust Theory of Change architecture. • Stage-gating to support adaptive management and investment prioritization. • Clear indicators and dashboard for transparency. • Linked digital architecture (PRMS, CLARISA) for interoperability. Gaps/Limitations • Limited integration of intersectional inclusion beyond gender. • Responsible innovation and scaling principles are not always made explicit in planning or reporting templates. • Data systems to capture adoption and use are still evolving; definitions, methodologies, and reporting practices are being refined across Initiatives, making cross-portfolio comparison difficult. • High level of complexity may create challenges for smaller teams with limited MELIA capacity. Opportunities for Integration • Harmonize definitions and indicators for innovation readiness, use, and adoption across PRMF and the Technical Reporting Arrangement to improve cross-tool comparability. • Link the theory of change structures used in PRMF to narrative reporting in TRA, ensuring a consistent line of sight from activities to outcomes and impact. • Integrate Scaling Readiness more deeply into stage-gate decision criteria and reporting templates, to operationalize responsible scaling. • Develop shared digital architecture or reporting interfaces (even if not CLARISA), to reduce fragmentation and duplicate reporting burdens. • Embed inclusion and equity metrics consistently across PRMF and other tools; current gender tracking could be expanded to intersectional analysis with agreed categories. 23 • Use PRMF’s adaptive management and quality assurance principles to support shared learning cycles across Initiatives and tools, not just within them. • Serve as an anchor framework for integrating findings from GenderUp, IPSR, and Scaling Scan across planning and review cycles. • Alignment with IPM processes would improve resource allocation decisions based on evidence from scaling diagnostics. Notes/Observations • The PRMF establishes a sophisticated system that blends performance management with innovation systems thinking. • Its emphasis on ToC, adaptive management, and innovation readiness marks a progressive step, but further operationalization of inclusion and end-user accountability is needed. 24 B3. Innovation Portfolio Management (IPM) ASPECT DETAILS Objective/Purpose • To manage innovation investments and decisions in alignment with CGIAR’s 2030 Research and Innovation Strategy. • To support responsible food systems transformation by improving the coherence, effectiveness, and transparency of innovation processes. Key Features/ Components • Based on three interlinked domains: methods, mindsets, and mechanisms. • Anchored in the Performance and Results Management Framework (PRMF). • Part of CGIAR's report–reflect–plan annual adaptive management cycle. • Emphasizes data quality, criteria for prioritization, and resource allocation. Key Terms/Concepts Used • Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness (IPSR). • Responsible innovation and scaling • Impact Areas, SDGs, GESI • Quality assurance, adaptive management • Risk-return profiles Intended Users • CGIAR initiative leads, program managers • Portfolio managers and senior leadership • Scaling and innovation facilitators • Donors and partners Definition/ Understanding of Responsible Innovation • Innovations must demonstrate inclusion, equity, and environmental sustainability. • Data are collected on efforts to promote gender equality, mitigate unintended consequences, and document the diversity of innovation teams. Definition/ Understanding of Responsible Scaling • Scaling must be equitable and evidence-based, considering who benefits and how. • Responsible scaling involves reflecting on use patterns, bottlenecks, and unintended effects across different social groups. Inclusion of Responsible Innovation • Innovation reporting includes GESI tagging, user characteristics (sex, age), and unintended impacts. • Innovations must be described with their social implications and equity considerations. Inclusion of Responsible Scaling • Scaling Readiness metrics are applied to innovation packages. • Support is available to design scaling strategies, with incentives linked to reporting and responsible use. • Equity considerations are integral to PRMF and dashboard analytics. Approach to Scaling • Systematic and strategic: innovations move through readiness and use stages. • Prioritization is based on risk-return, user reach, and alignment with SDGs and CGIAR Impact Areas. • Envisions adaptive scaling through partnerships and tailored strategies. Operational Guidance • Detailed guidance through PRMF and Technical Reporting Arrangement. • Tools include e-learning, facilitation support, and dashboards. • Standard indicator sheets define required reporting parameters. 25 Strengths/Good Practice • Evidence-driven, integrated system covering development and use. • Encourages learning, reflection, and transparency. • Incentivizes responsible innovation and inclusive scaling. • Strong QA process and increasing internal capacity. Gaps/Limitations • Governance, allocation strategies, and criteria for decision-making are still evolving. • Resource-intensive and may be seen as top-down by some stakeholders. • Linking of innovation supply to user demand is not yet fully developed. • Responsible scaling data has only recently been incorporated; not yet comprehensive. Opportunities for Integration • Can strengthen interoperability with tools like TRA, IPSR, and GenderUp. • Offers a strategic entry point for embedding responsible innovation and scaling in planning and budgeting. • Potential to guide donor engagement and national policy alignment. • Integration with TRA would allow alignment between reporting and innovation prioritization. • Could benefit from routine use of GenderUp and Scaling Scan to assess equity and system-readiness of innovation portfolios. • Use of the Six-step approach diagnostics and IPSR readiness scores can inform stage-gate decisions and resource allocation. Notes/Observations • IPM marks a cultural shift in CGIAR toward outcome-oriented innovation management. • Strong focus on analytics, visualization, and strategic communication with stakeholders. • The system continues to evolve through adaptive learning and feedback loops. 26 B4. Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness (IPSR) ASPECT DETAILS Objective/Purpose • Evidence-based approach to scaling of innovations. • Making optimal use of resources to increase impact, reach more people faster, and identify context-specific pathways to scale innovations responsibly. Key Features/ Components • Tools for data collection and analysis • Nine levels of Innovation Readiness and Innovation Use. • Five-Step process for Scaling Readiness: Identify, Characterize, Assess, Prioritize, and Strategize. Key Terms/Concepts Used • Impact, Effectiveness, Potential. • Innovation System: The network of organizations, enterprises, and individuals focused on bringing new products, processes, and forms of organization into social and economic use. • Innovation Packages: Combinations of interrelated innovations and enabling conditions that can lead to transformation and impact at scale in a specific context. • Scaling Readiness: A metric that combines innovation readiness and innovation use scores at innovation package level. Intended Users • Scientists • Program Managers • MELIA staff • Fundraising staff • Partnership Coordinators Definition/ Understanding of Responsible Innovation • Innovations have technological, social, market, and political components. • Innovation descriptions must include the intended users. • Responsibility includes ensuring innovations are designed with diverse user needs in mind, although the focus is often more upstream than with end users. Definition/ Understanding of Responsible Scaling • Scaling does not benefit all equally. • There may be bottlenecks to scaling (considered in terms of the Innovation Readiness and Innovation Use levels). • Core innovations may require additional complementary innovations to be scalable in specific locations/contexts = the innovation package. • Scaling takes place within an enabling or constraining environment. • Scaling is seen as non-linear and dependent on adaptive alignment between innovation packages and local conditions Inclusion of Responsible Innovation • Anticipation. • Inclusion (focuses more on institutional stakeholders than on affected users or communities). End-user perspectives are not systematically incorporated unless partner organizations raise them. • Reflexivity (at Step 5 of Scaling Readiness). • Responsiveness (again focused on partners/stakeholders). Inclusion of Responsible Scaling • Institutional Fit, Adaptive Learning. • Responsiveness and learning are emphasized, but tools to track equity or differential impact on specific groups are limited. 27 Approach to Scaling • Cyclical and Iterative. • Scaling is framed as a learning process, often requiring reconfiguration of innovation packages for different settings. Operational Guidance • Detailed guidelines on the Levels for Innovation Readiness and Innovation Use. • PowerPoint-based guidance for each Step of Scaling Readiness is comprehensive but may require external facilitation or prior orientation to use effectively. • Support is available from experts to help facilitate or think through the process (at a cost). Strengths/Good Practice • Scientific, rigorous, and evidence-based. • Supports decision-making, strategy development, and monitoring. • Encourages structured reflection on barriers to scaling and partner roles in scaling pathways. Gaps/Limitations • Terminology and scoring systems can be intimidating for non-technical users; scoring may require facilitation to ensure consistency. • Does not track actual implementation or impact of scaling strategies. • Time-consuming and resource-intensive, with substantial investment needed at the higher levels of Scaling Readiness (4 and 5). • Limited consideration of inclusivity for end users. Opportunities for Integration • Can be used alongside PRMF stage-gating or TRA innovation reporting to bring greater nuance to readiness and use assessments. • Possible integration into ToC design and adaptation planning. • Use Scaling Scan as a complementary tool for stakeholder-led diagnosis of readiness and bottlenecks. • Incorporate GenderUp workshop insights into the innovation narrative and trade-off sections on the IPSR platform. • Enhance feedback loops by integrating with IPM stage-gating and prioritization discussions. Notes/Observations • Terminology is quite scientific and may be daunting to new users. • Useful for donors and MELIA staff as a planning and diagnostic tool, although uptake across the CGIAR has been uneven. 28 B5. GenderUp ASPECT DETAILS Objective/Purpose • Support innovation teams in scaling agricultural innovations in a gender- responsible and socially inclusive manner. • Promote anticipation, reflexivity, responsiveness, and attention to social differentiation and trade-offs in scaling processes. Key Features/ Components • Facilitator-led workshops and interactive discussions. • Identification of social differentiation. • Mitigation strategies for unintended consequences. • Dimensions of diversity survey. • Online or offline delivery (Miro boards and printable resources). • Structured stages for analysis and strategy refinement. Key Terms/Concepts Used • Intersectionality • Scaling strategy • Innovation users • Social differentiation • Inclusive scaling • Unintended impacts • Trade-offs Intended Users • CGIAR research teams • Innovation teams • Facilitators trained in GenderUp • Development actors Definition/Understa nding of Responsible Innovation • Emphasizes inclusion, reflexivity, and responsiveness in scaling agricultural innovations. • Supports inclusive design and structured team reflection. • Encourages reflexivity and responsiveness through attention to team and user diversity. Definition/Understa nding of Responsible Scaling • Emphasizes equitable scaling, considering unintended impacts, power dynamics, and the social differentiation of users and non-users. • Scaling is seen as a socially embedded and non-neutral process. • Considers both users and non-users, and the potential for unequal benefit. Inclusion of Responsible Innovation • Ensures reflexive discussions, enabling innovation teams to evaluate inclusivity and unintended consequences before scaling. • Uses surveys and guided discussion to reflect on inclusion and power dynamics. • Includes evaluation of team composition and approach. Inclusion of Responsible Scaling • Integrates principles of responsible scaling, ensuring marginalized groups are considered and benefit from innovations. • Explicitly identifies who may be excluded or negatively affected. • Teams develop targeted mitigation strategies. Approach to Scaling • Innovation teams are guided through workshops to identify social differentiation, refine scaling strategies, and develop mitigation measures for unintended consequences. • Facilitated, participatory, and diagnostic. • Focused on real-world user diversity and context-specific adaptations. 29 Operational Guidance • Workshops structured over 2-3 days. • Printable and digital tools available. • Includes facilitator training and pre-engagement recommendations. Strengths/Good Practice • Helps innovation teams anticipate unintended impacts. • Facilitates inclusive scaling strategies. • Provides structured facilitation. • Has influenced IPSR reporting structures and innovation team diversity scores. Gaps/Limitations • Accessibility of GenderUp resources in offline settings. • Need for more streamlined materials. • Challenges in the user-friendliness of online platforms (as identified in feedback from facilitators). • Some teams may need support to apply intersectionality effectively. Opportunities for Integration • Could be further institutionalized within CGIAR scaling frameworks. • Complement Scaling Readiness tools. • Support PhD research on the long-term social impacts of scaling. • Can inform equity analysis across responsible scaling tools. • Could be embedded as a reflection step within IPSR or IPM cycles. • Offers participatory tools that complement Scaling Scan’s systems perspective and the Six-step approach’s value chain focus. • Could inform the development of inclusion prompts within TRA and PRMF reporting templates. Notes/Observations • Institutionalized in CGIAR initiatives like Ukama Ustawi and Mitigate+. • Workshops have improved innovation teams’ understanding of social differentiation and inclusive scaling, inspired new PhD research, and highlighted the need for more accessible, streamlined facilitation materials. 30 B6. Scaling Scan ASPECT DETAILS Objective/Purpose • To support innovation teams in identifying opportunities and challenges for scaling innovations sustainably. • To promote responsible, context-specific scaling that addresses both enablers and barriers, as well as social and environmental risks. Key Features/ Components • Three-step process: Scaling Ambition; Scaling Ingredients (10 elements); Opportunities and Challenges for Scaling. • “System check” for scaling-up and scaling-down. • “Responsibility check” for assessing social and environmental impacts. • Facilitated workshops or digital/Excel tool versions. • Rapid version available (30 minutes). Key Terms/Concepts Used • Innovation system • Enabling environment • Scaling ambition • Scaling “up” and scaling “down” • Trade-offs • Responsible scaling • Scaling ingredients (e.g. Business Cases, Collaboration, Leadership) • Social inclusion, Intersectionality, Empowerment Intended Users • Innovation teams • Project coordinators and managers • Development practitioners • Policy makers and donors • Facilitators of multi-stakeholder scaling efforts Definition/ Understanding of Responsible Innovation • Innovations are not neutral; they need to be evaluated for compatibility with local norms, user needs, and environmental sustainability. • The approach encourages reflexive thinking about the equity, relevance, and consequences of innovations. Definition/ Understanding of Responsible Scaling • Emphasizes that scaling must be deliberate and responsible i.e. not all scaling is inherently good. • Encourages “do no harm” and “leave no one behind” principles. • Supports identifying unintended consequences, distribution of risks and benefits, and empowerment of marginalized groups. Inclusion of Responsible Innovation • Strong inclusion of social differentiation, power dynamics, and unintended impacts in the Scaling Ambition and Ingredients sections. • Innovations must consider the needs of, and barriers faced by, different groups, including by gender, class, age, income, and geography. Inclusion of Responsible Scaling • Systematically incorporates checks for social and environmental risks. • Explicit attention to equity in participation, benefit sharing, and mitigation of negative impacts. • Anticipates trade-offs and considers who bears the cost of scaling failures. Approach to Scaling • Iterative, participatory, and multi-stakeholder. • Focuses on both the enabling environment and internal project dynamics. • Encourages long-term thinking and phased scaling strategies. 31 Operational Guidance • Detailed guidance provided for each step and ingredient. • Supporting materials include Excel templates, facilitation tips, and workshop agendas. • Online and offline versions available. Strengths/Good Practice • Encourages reflection on both what is known and unknown about scaling. • Builds shared understanding across teams and sectors. • Explicitly addresses equity, inclusion, and unintended impacts. • Adaptable to different project phases and settings. Gaps/Limitations • Does not deliver a full implementation strategy on its own. • Effectiveness depends on the diversity and engagement of participants. • May be time-consuming for teams unfamiliar with the concepts or with limited facilitation support. Opportunities for Integration • Can complement tools like IPSR and GenderUp. • Useful in TRA and IPM processes for setting scaling ambition and identifying bottlenecks. • Helps surface issues for prioritization in program design and adaptive management. • Ideal for use before or alongside IPSR assessments to identify system-level enablers or constraints. • Can feed findings into IPM decision-making processes or TRA narratives. • Could benefit from incorporating GenderUp's social differentiation tools to strengthen its responsibility check. Notes/Observations • Highlights the need to think systemically and ethically about scaling. • Facilitates strong team dialogue and self-assessment. • Offers a rare blend of structured rigor and contextual flexibility. 32 B7. Six-step Approach for Scaling Low-Emission Food Systems ASPECT DETAILS Objective/Purpose • To provide a structured guide for generating an enabling environment to scale innovations for low-emission food systems, while maximizing co- benefits and minimizing trade-offs with other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Key Features/ Components • Six inter-connected steps: 1. Identify direct and underlying GHG emission drivers. 2. Align with government development priorities. 3. Assess farm-level innovation adoption potential. 4. Develop value chain upgrading strategies. 5. Design inclusive business models and financial mechanisms. 6. Measure climate action benefits, SDG co-benefits, and unintended effects. • Emphasis on enabling environment and systems-level transformation. Key Terms/Concepts Used • Enabling environment • Co-benefits • Scaling out/up/deep • GHG emissions • Innovation adoption • Inclusive business models Intended Users • Policymakers • Scaling practitioners • Researchers • Program designers • Implementation partners Definition/ Understanding of Responsible Innovation • Innovation includes not only technological change, but also institutional, policy, financial, and social arrangements. • The approach explicitly considers adoption incentives, unintended impacts, and inclusivity in business models, but stops short of a formal RI framework. Definition/ Understanding of Responsible Scaling • Scaling is viewed as a multi-dimensional, systems-oriented process to achieve sustainable impact. • Includes concepts of scaling out (reach), up (policy), and deep (cultural shift). • Recognizes that not all innovations benefit all groups equally, and trade-offs must be assessed. Inclusion of Responsible Innovation • Partially included via emphasis on participatory approaches, value chain mapping, and governance models. • Primary focus on institutional stakeholders, with less emphasis on marginalized end users. Inclusion of Responsible Scaling • Explicit guidance to measure SDG co-benefits and unintended effects, including social inequality or environmental degradation. • Promotes inclusive business models and alignment with government priorities to secure broader buy-in. Approach to Scaling • Context-specific, systems-based, and evidence-driven. 33 • Uses adoption studies, stakeholder engagement, and mapping to co- develop strategies tailored to local realities. • The steps are non-prescriptive and adaptable. Operational Guidance • Comprehensive documentation per step with evidence, case studies, and methods. • Accompanied by case study applications (e.g. Colombia silvopastoral systems). • Not a standalone scaling tool, but complements existing ones (e.g. IPSR, Scaling Scan, GenderUp). Strengths/Good Practice • Emphasizes political alignment and enabling conditions. • Encourages participatory and evidence-based scaling strategies. • Holistic, integrates climate, development, and policy goals. • Focuses on practical implementation and trade-off mitigation. Gaps/Limitations • Not designed to monitor scaling over time. • No specific reporting templates or digital tools. • Assumes a degree of pre-existing evidence about the innovation. • Inclusion of end users and marginalized groups could be stronger. • Resource-intensive and best suited to well-resourced initiatives. Opportunities for Integration • Can be used alongside IPSR for deeper environmental/social diagnostics. • Inform the design of ToCs and stage-gate scaling strategies in the PRMF. • Valuable supplement to innovation reporting and decision-making in TRA and IPM processes. • Opportunity to embed more structured feedback loops and equity metrics. • Potential to serve as a pre-scaling diagnostic feeding into TRA and IPM planning. • Could be aligned with IPSR readiness/use scoring to quantify scaling feasibility after environmental or value chain assessments. • Could be paired with GenderUp for identifying the social dimensions of adoption barriers. Notes/Observations • A flexible, thoughtful guide that bridges innovation diagnostics and policy engagement. It’s most useful where scaling requires multi-stakeholder coordination, contextual understanding, and demonstration of SDG co- benefits to secure support. 34 ANNEX C: RESOURCES USED FOR FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK/ INSTRUMENT RESOURCE LINKS Responsible Innovation • Dror, I., Ewell, H., Leeuwis, C., et al. (2024). Responsible Innovation & Scaling Strategy Development Process for CGIAR’s IPSR Framework Workshop Report, ILRI Campus, Nairobi, Kenya, 21-22 March 2024. Montpellier, France: CGIAR System Organization. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/148719 • Wilford, S., Fisk, M., & Stahl, B. (2016). Guidelines for Responsible Research and Innovation. Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK. https://www.great- project.eu/Deliverables10 Responsible Scaling • Price-Kelly, H., van Haeren, L., & McLean, R. (2020). The Scaling Playbook. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre. https://idl-bnc- idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/58780/IDL- 58780.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y • Wigboldus, S., with Brouwers, J. (2016). Using a Theory of Scaling to guide decision making: Towards a structured approach to support responsible scaling of innovations in the context of agrifood systems. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University & Research. https://edepot.wur.nl/405915 • Wigboldus, S. A., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). Towards responsible scaling up and out in agricultural development: An exploration of concepts and principles. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen University & Research. https://edepot.wur.nl/306491 TRA – Technical Reporting Arrangement • CGIAR Results Framework v4. https://cgiar.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/PPUInterim/EQvVo9v0VmRMkupweB QZ-o8Bcb2W7H04fqzKpX5GOZiTnA?wdOrigin=TEAMS- WEB.p2p_ns.rwc&wdExp=TEAMS- TREATMENT&wdhostclicktime=1748360664458&web=1 • CGIAR Technical Reporting Arrangement document. https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2022/06/CGIAR-Technical- Reporting-Arrangement-June2022.pdf PRMF – Performance and Results Management Framework • CGIAR Performance and Results Management Framework 2022-2030. https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2021/07/SC11-03b_CGIAR- Performance-and-Results-Management-Framework-2022- 30_postmeeting8July2021.pdf IPM – Innovation Portfolio Management • CGIAR Results Dashboard. https://www.cgiar.org/food-security- impact/results-dashboard • Schut, M., Colomer, J., Proud, E., et al. (2024). Innovation portfolio management for responsible food systems transformation in the public sector: Lessons, results and recommendations from CGIAR. Agricultural Systems, 216, 103907. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/138329 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/148719 https://www.great-project.eu/Deliverables10 https://www.great-project.eu/Deliverables10 https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/58780/IDL-58780.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/58780/IDL-58780.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/58780/IDL-58780.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y https://edepot.wur.nl/405915 https://edepot.wur.nl/306491 https://cgiar.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/PPUInterim/EQvVo9v0VmRMkupweBQZ-o8Bcb2W7H04fqzKpX5GOZiTnA?wdOrigin=TEAMS-WEB.p2p_ns.rwc&wdExp=TEAMS-TREATMENT&wdhostclicktime=1748360664458&web=1 https://cgiar.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/PPUInterim/EQvVo9v0VmRMkupweBQZ-o8Bcb2W7H04fqzKpX5GOZiTnA?wdOrigin=TEAMS-WEB.p2p_ns.rwc&wdExp=TEAMS-TREATMENT&wdhostclicktime=1748360664458&web=1 https://cgiar.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/PPUInterim/EQvVo9v0VmRMkupweBQZ-o8Bcb2W7H04fqzKpX5GOZiTnA?wdOrigin=TEAMS-WEB.p2p_ns.rwc&wdExp=TEAMS-TREATMENT&wdhostclicktime=1748360664458&web=1 https://cgiar.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/PPUInterim/EQvVo9v0VmRMkupweBQZ-o8Bcb2W7H04fqzKpX5GOZiTnA?wdOrigin=TEAMS-WEB.p2p_ns.rwc&wdExp=TEAMS-TREATMENT&wdhostclicktime=1748360664458&web=1 https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2022/06/CGIAR-Technical-Reporting-Arrangement-June2022.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2022/06/CGIAR-Technical-Reporting-Arrangement-June2022.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2021/07/SC11-03b_CGIAR-Performance-and-Results-Management-Framework-2022-30_postmeeting8July2021.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2021/07/SC11-03b_CGIAR-Performance-and-Results-Management-Framework-2022-30_postmeeting8July2021.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2021/07/SC11-03b_CGIAR-Performance-and-Results-Management-Framework-2022-30_postmeeting8July2021.pdf https://www.cgiar.org/food-security-impact/results-dashboard https://www.cgiar.org/food-security-impact/results-dashboard https://hdl.handle.net/10568/138329 35 IPSR – Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness • Scaling of Innovation PowerPoint. https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-of- Innovation.pptx • Scaling Readiness General Introduction PowerPoint. https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness- General-Introduction.pptx • Scaling Readiness Step 0 PowerPoint. https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness- Step-0.pptx • Scaling Readiness Step 1 PowerPoint. https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness- Step-1.pptx • Scaling Readiness Step 2 PowerPoint. https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness- Step-2.pptx • Scaling Readiness Step 3 PowerPoint. https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness- Step-3.pptx • Scaling Readiness Step 4 PowerPoint. https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness- Step-4.pptx • Scaling Readiness Step 5 PowerPoint. https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness- Step-5.pptx • Schut, M. 2022. CGIAR Innovation Packages and Scaling Readiness (IPSR). https://hdl.handle.net/10568/125828 GenderUp • GenderUp Dimensions of Diversity Survey. https://genderup.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk14601/files/inline- files/Relevant_Social_Dimensions_Survey_Printed.pdf • GenderUp Glossary of Terms. https://genderup.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk14601/files/inline- files/GenderUp%20Glossary%20of%20Terms.pdf • Gregerson K., Kilwinger F., Schut M., McGuire E., Rietveld A., and Leeuwis C. (January 2024). Gender-Up Date: Progress towards outcomes. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/139262 Scaling Scan • Woltering, L., & Valencia, E. (2023). The Scaling Scan: A practical tool to determine opportunities and challenges to sustainably scale innovations. CIMMYT & One CGIAR initiative on Low Emission Agriculture. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/138329 Six-step Approach • Amahnui GA et al. (2024). A Six-step Approach for Scaling Low-Emission Food Systems: Evidence and Guidelines. Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/135059 https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-of-Innovation.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-of-Innovation.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness-General-Introduction.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness-General-Introduction.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness-Step-0.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness-Step-0.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness-Step-1.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness-Step-1.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness-Step-2.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness-Step-2.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness-Step-3.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness-Step-3.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness-Step-4.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness-Step-4.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness-Step-5.pptx https://cdn.scalingreadiness.org/uploads/2020/01/Scaling-Readiness-Step-5.pptx https://hdl.handle.net/10568/125828 https://genderup.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk14601/files/inline-files/Relevant_Social_Dimensions_Survey_Printed.pdf https://genderup.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk14601/files/inline-files/Relevant_Social_Dimensions_Survey_Printed.pdf https://genderup.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk14601/files/inline-files/GenderUp%20Glossary%20of%20Terms.pdf https://genderup.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk14601/files/inline-files/GenderUp%20Glossary%20of%20Terms.pdf https://hdl.handle.net/10568/139262 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/138329 https://hdl.handle.net/10568/135059 36 ANNEX D: GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED This glossary provides brief definitions of the key concepts used in the analysis of responsible innovation and scaling. The terms reflect both the analytical framework underpinning the assessment and language drawn from the reviewed literature, including EU Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), IDRC, and Wageningen University and Research (WUR). These definitions are intended to ensure shared understanding by readers of terms that may be interpreted differently across CGIAR teams and partners. TERM DEFINITION Adaptive Learning An iterative, feedback-driven approach to innovation and scaling that allows for adjustment based on new insights and experience. Anticipation Considering potential future consequences, risks, and trade-offs of innovations early in the process. Inclusion Ensuring diverse stakeholders, especially those historically marginalized, are meaningfully involved in innovation and scaling decisions. Innovation Package A bundle of interdependent innovations and enabling conditions designed to achieve outcomes at scale in a specific context. Institutional Fit The degree to which innovations align with the local systems, norms, rules, and capacities in a given context. Instrument An umbrella term used in this report to refer collectively to CGIAR frameworks (TRA, PRMF), methodologies (IPM, IPSR), and operational tools (GenderUp, Scaling Scan, Six-Step Approach). Knowledge Giving attention to whose evidence, experience, or worldviews are considered valid and included in decision-making. Legitimacy Recognizing who makes decisions, under what authority, and how this affects perceptions of fairness and credibility. Power and Inclusion The extent to which marginalized groups can influence decisions and benefit from innovation and scaling processes. Reflexivity The practice of critically examining one’s assumptions, values, and roles in shaping innovation and scaling strategies. While some instruments (e.g. IPSR) include structured reflection on readiness and enabling conditions, reflexivity as used in this report includes broader reflection on questions such as “Are we doing the right thing?” and “For whom?”, not only “How well are we doing?”. Responsible Innovation Innovation that is ethically acceptable, sustainable, and socially desirable, developed through inclusive and reflexive processes. Includes anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, responsiveness, legitimacy, and consideration of whose knowledge is valued. Responsible Scaling A process of scaling that is intentional, equitable, and context-sensitive, ensuring benefits are inclusive and adapted to local systems and social dynamics. Responsiveness The ability and willingness to adapt innovation processes based on stakeholder input, feedback, and changing contexts. Scaling Readiness A metric that combines the readiness of innovations and their actual use to assess whether they are suitable for scaling. Social Differentiation The process of identifying and responding to differences among social groups, such as gender, age, disability, or class, that affect how innovations are experienced, adopted, or excluded. 37 Systems-aware Recognizes that innovations interact with wider social, institutional, ecological, and economic systems. A systems-aware approach considers interdependencies, feedback loops, and potential unintended consequences when designing or scaling innovations. 38 ANNEX E: DRAFT INTEGRATION PROMPTS This annex presents a preliminary set of prompts to support greater integration between CGIAR instruments and to embed principles of responsible innovation and scaling into routine practice. The prompts are intended for use by MEL, innovation, and program teams when applying or combining instruments. They are indicative, and may be adapted depending on the context and innovation type and for different purposes, e.g. strategy sessions, planning workshops, or reporting cycles. Specific prompts are drawn from the analysis in Sections 5 and 7, while the general prompts aim to strengthen reflection, inclusion, and alignment across the innovation and scaling ecosystem. These prompts are based on the internal CGIAR instrument analysis conducted for this report. They may be refined or expanded in the future, as wider consultations are held with CGIAR staff and partners to discuss feasibility, and global frameworks and external approaches are reviewed for potential integration into CGIAR processes. E1: Instrument Pairing Prompts INSTRUMENT PAIR INTEGRATION OPPORTUNITY PROMPT TRA + IPSR Enrich reporting with data from scaling readiness assessments. Can insights from IPSR scaling readiness scores be reflected in our outcome narratives? TRA + IPSR Embed inclusion into routine reporting. Have we reported on actions taken to address social differentiation or mitigate exclusion risks? IPM + Scaling Scan Use early-stage system diagnostics to inform portfolio-level decisions. Does our innovation portfolio reflect the actual bottlenecks and enablers in the scaling environment? PRMF + GenderUp Link MEL cycles with social inclusion learning. How are we embedding reflexivity and responsiveness into our learning loops? IPSR + GenderUp Combine technical scaling diagnostics with structured reflection on gender, inclusion, and unintended impacts. Have we considered which groups may be excluded from our innovation package, not only in use, but in design? Who shaped this innovation, and who might be unintentionally harmed or left out by scaling it? Scaling Scan + Six- Step Approach Use both to strengthen context analysis. Have we identified and prioritized external constraints that could block scaling? E2: General Integration Questions These can be adapted for ToC workshops, initiative design, MEL reviews, or planning cycles: • Who might be left behind by our innovation or scaling process? • Have we asked whether the innovation reflects the needs and priorities of those most affected? • Are we just diagnosing readiness for scale, or also questioning whether scaling this innovation is desirable, ethical, or inclusive in its current form? • Have we anticipated the potential unintended impacts of scaling? • Are we drawing on diverse types of evidence, from different groups and sources? • Is this instrument helping us to adapt, or just monitor? • Where can inclusion be better embedded into reporting, planning, or resource allocation? • Can instruments be combined (e.g., IPSR + GenderUp) to give both technical and social insights?