Pathways to Scale
Pathways to Scale
Embedded Files
There are many different ways to talk about pathways to scale. None are direct blueprints you can follow. Sometimes multiple pathways are combined into one—sometimes they are concurrent, sometimes sequential. Sometimes you just need one. Different types of organisational structures (e.g. INGOs vs. social enterprises), different types of projects, and different types of impact goals will all suit different pathways.
We’ve drawn on our favourite three sources to give you an overview of the different ways you can explore impact at scale.
Scaling Up, Out and Deep
Scaling Out is about replication. It focuses on taking successful projects or models and replicating them in new locations or contexts. Example from WWF: SMART
Scaling Up is about policy and systems change. This approach focuses on influencing the structures and rules that govern how things work, creating an enabling environment for large-scale impact. Example from WWF: EU Nature Restoration Law
Scaling Deep is about impacting cultural norms and facilitating behaviour change as a means of tackling a problem. It focuses on influencing the way people think, feel, and act to embed impact at a deeper, more personal level. Example from WWF: Earth Hour
Adapted from Moore et al. (2015) paper: Scaling Out, Scaling Up, Scaling Deep.
Scaling Pathway Framework
This framework draws on insights from Spring Impact’s Scale Pathways Guide, and the Scaling Social Impact article by G. Dees, Beth Battle Anderson, and Jane Wei-Skillern.
Before You Choose a Pathway
Before deciding which pathway to pursue, you need to determine
what element of your project actually needs to scale.
One of the most important trade-offs when choosing a pathway to scale is between how complex your solution is and how much control you need to retain in its implementation.
If your solution is highly complex, for example, requiring specialist skills, delicate sequencing, or deep contextual knowledge, then you’ll likely need to retain significant control to ensure quality and impact. This often means scaling through pathways like branching or subcontracting, where your organisation continues to play a central role.
If your solution is relatively simple or modular, it becomes easier for others to adopt, adapt, and deliver independently. This enables pathways like open sourcing, training, or movement-building, which allow for less control but much broader reach.
Taken from "The Scaling Value Playbook", 978-3-11-078947-8, © 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Ask yourself: Are you the only actor who can implement this well? Can others pick it up with minimal support? Are the core elements of the solution transferable without losing quality?
Which Element Needs to Scale?
The 5 R’s are key factors that help determine whether, how, and through which pathway your project should scale. They originate from the work of Dees, Anderson, and Wei-Skillern and are meant to support social innovators in selecting fit-for-purpose strategies based on their context.
Here’s how each dimension can shape your approach:
Readiness: Is your solution proven, replicable, and clearly defined? If your model still depends on exceptional individuals or local conditions, you may need to refine it further before scaling broadly. Pathways like branching or limited piloting are more suitable at this stage.
Receptivity: Are communities or partners ready to adopt your solution? If there’s enthusiasm and alignment, dissemination or accreditation might be viable. But if resistance is likely, you may need more adaptive or co-creative pathways or to build momentum through policy engagement or movement-building first.
Resources: How much capacity - people, funding, time - can you dedicate to scaling? High-resource pathways like branching or franchising require sustained support, while open sourcing or training approaches demand far less central investment.
Risks: What could go wrong if the model is implemented poorly? If the stakes are high, such as harm to beneficiaries or reputational damage, choose pathways that allow tight control, like branching or franchising. If risks are low, looser approaches may be acceptable.
Returns: What kind of impact are you aiming for, and at what scale? If speed and spread are your top priorities, dissemination and affiliation might get you there faster. But if depth of impact, brand integrity, or shared learning is vital, then tighter models may offer better long-term value.
The 5 R’s don’t give you a formula but they help you weigh what matters most. Often, the right strategy is not a single pathway, but a combination that evolves over time.
Page updated
Report abuse