As Google grew, it faced an existential problem: how to maintain quality as the number of daily searches grew from millions to billions, such that concentrating information in a limited number of data centers was no longer feasible.

Google solved the problem with networks: By engineering connections among hundreds of thousands of computers, Google radically expanded what their search technology could do. But networks are not only key to speed and scale in the technology sector; the same is true for ambitious climate policy. Instead of billions of data points, we are dealing with billions of emissions sources and billions of humans impacted by climate change. And networks are particularly suited for addressing “complex, unpredictable, large-scale problems like climate change,” as long-standing social impact experts John Cleveland, Madeleine Taylor, and Peter Plastrik observe in Connecting to Change the World. That’s because each network member can tackle a piece of the puzzle, while maintaining relationships that allow coordination, collaboration, and troubleshooting. This aligns with other research showing that nonprofits further their missions more effectively and efficiently by investing in external networks and tapping into resources outside their direct control.

Time is of the essence: If countries are left to tackle clean energy transition policies in isolation, there is a real risk of having to reinvent the wheel multiple times, dramatically slowing down the world’s climate progress. Philanthropy must facilitate the rapid spread of solutions by investing in networks.

In my more than 20 years in philanthropy, I’ve observed five essential network features that drive exponential climate solutions.

  1. High-impact networks are defined by a common theory of change. In this way, members unite around a common concern and share an approach to addressing that concern, but each individual member is able to offer unique contributions.
  2. A network should be structured as a web of interconnections. In top-down systems, knowledge must pass through one level before it can move to the next. But overlapping webs of relationships can allow information to spread across multiple connection points and in multiple directions, accelerating learning. In the context of climate policy, networks facilitate the rapid sharing of lessons learned in one city, state, or country to another. These webs of relationships within and across borders make it possible to disseminate policy expertise to many more decision-makers.
  3. A web of interconnected organizations is nimble and adaptable. In hierarchical structures, decision-making is often concentrated in a few organizations or individuals, which can make them highly inflexible. If one pillar is weakened, the entire effort can collapse. But in a network, resources and focus can shift as opportunities or threats arise.
  4. Connections must not be superficial, but consist of meaningful, trusting relationships. The ability to freely share knowledge, technical know-how, strategic intelligence, and other vital information depends entirely on building sufficient trust and mutual respect. Moreover, the benefits of solving problems in a network can only be obtained if members know both who to ask for help and feel comfortable disclosing the challenge faced.
  5. Knowledge exchange must be reciprocal. The historical top-down model of philanthropy and technical assistance traditionally concentrated funding and expertise in one or a few organizations, often in the Global North. In this sense, investing in global networks not only encourages a broad sharing of financial and intellectual assets but also proves to be a more equitable model.

Read the full article about climate philanthropy by Joe Ryan at Stanford Social Innovation Review.