Communication Is Not an Afterthought: A Sector Reflection on Social Impact

Communication is widely recognised as essential to social impact work. Yet across the

sector, there remains a growing gap between the work being done and the audiences that

actually encounter it.

Illustrative image. Source: Pixabay (Alexas Fotos).

Most funded social impact projects include dissemination plans, visibility requirements, and

reporting obligations. In theory, communication is built into project design. In practice,

however, it is often constrained by structural and funding frameworks that no longer fully

reflect how information, trust, and influence operate today.

This is not a question of intent. Many funding and accountability systems are designed to

ensure transparency, proper use of resources, and public value. As a result, communication

efforts frequently prioritise formal outputs such as reports, websites, events, and legacy

media engagement. These tools remain important, particularly for documentation and

institutional audiences. However, they often circulate within familiar professional networks,

limiting broader reach.

A common pattern emerges across the sector: projects deliver meaningful work on the

ground capacity building, community engagement, service provision yet the story of that

work travels only within a small circle. Not because the work lacks impact, but because

communication is structured around narrow definitions of dissemination and modest

resource allocations.

In some cases, communication budgets are capped at minimal levels or absorbed into

broader cost categories. In others, certain approaches such as sustained digital distribution

or experimentation with format and tone are restricted by funding rules designed to

prevent misuse of resources. While these constraints are understandable within public-

interest frameworks, they also limit the ability of projects to adapt to a rapidly evolving

media landscape.

Today, people increasingly access information through digital and social platforms. Trust is

built through consistency, relatability, and presence not only through institutional language

or one-off announcements. When communication is under-resourced or confined to

traditional channels, projects risk missing key audiences, particularly the communities they

aim to reach.

This creates a gap between impact delivered and impact understood. At the same time, responsibility does not rest with funding structures alone. Project implementers also need to rethink how communication is approached internally. Treating it as a service function or a final-stage activity limits its potential. Communication is not merely about visibility; it is where advocacy, engagement, and mobilisation take place.

There is also a growing need to empower communication, media, and dissemination officers

with greater strategic autonomy. Audience-centred planning, experimentation with formats,

and the ability to engage in informal digital spaces are increasingly essential. Overly cautious

or excessively polished communication may meet formal requirements, but it rarely builds

trust or expands reach.

This reflection is not a call for unchecked promotion or commercialisation. Rather, it is an

invitation to the sector to modernise how communication is understood, resourced, and

valued. As social challenges evolve and media ecosystems shift, communication practices

must evolve alongside them.

When communication is treated as integral to social change not as an afterthought it

strengthens not only visibility, but relevance, legitimacy, and long-term impact. And

ultimately, that benefits funders, implementers, and communities alike.

About the Author

Racheal Ikulagba writes as a community-led impact project manager focused on capacity

building, leadership, and sustainable change within migrant and diaspora communities.