Published alongside EUDiF’s “Business Models for Diaspora Engagement” report, which will be presented at a webinar in spring 2026, this piece shares five lessons about growth, financing and institutionalisation within diaspora organisations. It draws on the expertise of Michelle Amoakoh (AiDiA), who peer-reviewed and contributed to the report, and stays in dialogue with its findings.
At AiDiA, a diaspora-led organisation based in Hamburg, Germany, operating at the intersection of entrepreneurship, culture and economic development, Michelle Amoakoh leads AiDiA Ventures, a business unit specifically designed to build sustainable offerings that allow the entity to grow beyond its existing non-profit structures and to explore ways of structuring investments that mobilise diaspora capital across entrepreneurship and other pathways.
Her reflections are shaped by several years of work in this interdisciplinary ecosystem, as well as by her broader professional background in venture building, impact investing and business strategy.
In the process of advancing AiDiA’s organisational viability over the past years, I have repeatedly encountered the same questions many diaspora organisations are facing today, questions also addressed in EUDiF’s “Business Models for Diaspora Engagement” report: How to move from ideas and projects to sustainable organisational models? How to create financial resilience without losing purpose? And how to grow in a field that is still finding its institutional footing?
The five lessons that follow grew out of these questions. Each lesson can be read on its own. Together, they offer a way of engaging with the report’s findings, particularly for other diaspora organisations, researchers and practitioners who are looking for ways to move from project-based action towards more durable, economically grounded structures.
Lesson 1: Think about revenue creation in the same way Google, McKinsey or any other organisation would
One of the biggest shifts a diaspora organisation can make is to stop treating revenue creation as a by-product of community work and start treating it as a strategic design question.
Ideally, this thinking begins early and shapes how the organisation is set up. But even further down the road, it’s worth taking a step back and looking at your stakeholder landscape, not only beneficiaries, but institutions, partners and ecosystem players to understand their demands: What do they consistently need? Where do their budgets already lie? And which of these needs come with a binding commitment, either structurally, legally or institutionally? Ideally, these three things need to be true at the same time.
Once the need being addressed and the value proposition are clear, everything else becomes easier. Instead of “explaining what you do”, you can offer a concrete product or service with a clear use case.
The next step is translating this into a simple financial logic. Not a complex forecast, but a basic understanding of how money flows in and out over time.
At the same time, it can be helpful to track internal capabilities and know-how to clearly define where the assets lie within the organisation. Moving away from the “we will see what opportunities occur” mindset toward intentionally engineered revenue streams, that is, building around what you can consistently deliver well. An idea that resonates with the report’s call to design integrated hybrid models.
It is also where traditional business functions such as sales, marketing and operations stop feeling optional. Even in small teams, thinking in these terms helps professionalise the organisation without weakening its mission. If anything, it creates the conditions to protect that mission over time.
For most diaspora organisations, revenue does not come from a single source, and it rarely should. In practice, it often rests on hybrid funding, as outlined by the report in seven distinct models. Designing different capital sources, in this sense, is not about becoming fully market-driven, but about being intentional about how different streams (revenue, funding, donations, etc.) relate to each other.
Importantly, the larger the share of self-generated income, the more flexibility a diaspora organisation typically has in working with public grants. Lower dependency allows organisations to be more selective and to align funded projects more closely with community priorities.
Lesson 2: For the institutionalisation of diaspora engagement, we need to shape the field we want to operate in
Diaspora engagement, or “Diaspora Affairs”, as we like to call it at AiDiA, is not starting from zero. In many countries, governments have already begun to respond by setting up diaspora offices, advisory boards or national strategies. At the same time, the field is still nascent. Roles, responsibilities and expectations are often not clearly defined, and practices differ widely across local, national and international levels.
This creates a moment of opportunity. Because the field is still taking shape, there is room to influence how diaspora engagement is understood, organized and embedded in public institutions. Language matters here. So does positioning. Whether diaspora engagement is framed as a cultural add-on, a social policy issue or a strategic economic function makes a significant difference for how it is resourced and sustained. Effectively, it can and should sit alongside domains such as economic development, integration policy or cultural diplomacy.
Building in this space requires more than commercial discipline. It also requires advocacy skills to navigate public institutions and their ecosystems. This links closely to the report’s emphasis on more structured advocacy and the maturation of advocacy into professional lobbying as part of building an enabling environment.
Longer-term operating grants, framework agreements or strategic partnerships tend to emerge where diaspora engagement is repeatedly recognised as a function rather than a series of isolated events. Reaching that point often depends on whether diaspora organisations can perform as reliable counterparts on eye level within institutional settings.
Importantly, this is a two-sided process. Institutionalisation happens where both sides evolve together, through mutual expectations and the capacity to translate strategy into implementation over time.
Lesson 3: Cooperative and community-embedded organisational models offer untapped potential
Many diaspora organisations operate within conventional non-profit structures. That model works in many cases, but it is not the only option, and often not the most enabling one. Some of the most underused opportunities sit in legal structures that treat diaspora members not only as beneficiaries, but as stakeholders.
Cooperative or member-owned structures offer one way to do this. They make it possible to mobilise diaspora expertise “as a service,” while giving contributors a clearer relationship to the value they help create. This matters particularly in contexts where financial compensation or formal ownership shares are limited. Ownership, in this sense, is not only financial, it can also be about agency, visibility, learning and long-term involvement.
For many professionals in the diaspora, this kind of engagement lowers the barrier to contribution. It allows people to bring in their expertise without committing full-time, to test work in new domains, to extend their skill sets, or to explore more entrepreneurial ways of working.
In other sectors, stakeholder-driven and member-owned organisations have shown a strong ability to adapt and endure. For diaspora organisations, these models can help align growth with community legitimacy, addressing a tension the report at hand identifies as a potential risk when scaling. Seen this way, community-embedded models are not a constraint on scale. They are one way of managing it.
Lesson 4: Diaspora organisations can learn a lot from the impact and social entrepreneurship field
Diaspora organisations and social enterprises face many of the same structural challenges. Both are mission-driven. Both often exist to serve communities. And both have to balance purpose with financial sustainability. Yet, in practice, these two worlds rarely overlap as much as they could.
Over time, the impact and social entrepreneurship ecosystem has developed a set of tools, concepts and financing approaches that can be highly relevant for diaspora organisations. Frameworks such as lean business modelling or impact measurement can help organisations articulate their value more clearly and think more deliberately about organisational sustainability, without compromising identity or mission.
This also applies to financing mechanisms themselves. Instruments like social impact bonds, blended instruments, or other impact-based models are often discussed in the impact space, but rarely in the context of diaspora organisations. Here, the report makes an important point: public actors can play a crucial role as de-riskers in innovative financing models.
Engaging more deeply with the social entrepreneurship literature also helps explain why diaspora organisations operating under what is described as a non-market-based logic, find it inherently more difficult to build organic revenue models than market-based businesses. Understanding this distinction does not solve the problem, but it helps frame it more realistically.
At the same time, engaging with the impact ecosystem opens doors. It connects diaspora organisations to investors interested in social outcomes, to networks experienced in supporting early-stage mission-driven ventures, and to methodologies that have helped other organisations become more resilient over time. For many diaspora organisations, this space can serve less as a blueprint, and more as a source of orientation and inspiration.
Lesson 5: A Diaspora organisation is, in essence, an early-stage venture, and can benefit from thinking like one
Many leaders of diaspora organisations come from backgrounds such as academia, education, international development, politics or the social sciences. These fields bring deep expertise, but they are not always rooted in entrepreneurial practice. At the same time, the challenges diaspora organisations face look very familiar to anyone who has worked with early-stage ventures: limited resources, shifting needs, and the constant need to test, adapt and prioritise.
Thinking like a startup is not about turning every diaspora organisation into a commercial business. It is about adopting a problem-solving mindset. One that values experimentation, learning and iteration. It means piloting ideas before scaling them, testing assumptions early, and finding creative ways to build momentum even when resources are tight.
Importantly, adopting an entrepreneurial mindset does not necessarily weaken a diaspora organisation’s mission. It can help organisations stay responsive to community needs, navigate uncertainty with more confidence, and turn ambitious ideas into workable solutions.
In this sense, startup thinking becomes less about being “entrepreneurial” in name, and more about being intentional, adaptive and future-oriented in practice. This aligns closely with the report’s recommendation to treat entrepreneurial and financial capabilities as foundational organisational skills rather than optional add-ons.
Closing remarks
What we are seeing today is a new phase in the evolution of diaspora organisations. Alongside culturally rooted community work, more diaspora organisations are emerging that operate with organisational rigour and economic intent, leveraging diaspora expertise, networks and resources to engage in partnerships and development processes at eye level alongside institutions increasingly confronted with complex, transnational challenges.
In this sense, many diaspora organisations are entering a process of institutionalisation. That is, moving from presence to permanence and from participation to influence. Building viable business models is a central, though not exclusive, part of that journey.
This is why the Business Models for Diaspora Engagement report fills a critical gap. It is one of the first efforts to systematically structure these dynamics and provide orientation for diaspora organisations working to establish themselves as durable actors within economic, political and institutional systems.
Are you interested in learning more about the report and how diaspora organisations are implementing these business models? Do not miss our upcoming webinar in spring 2026. Stay tuned for more information!
About the author
Michelle Amoakoh works at the intersection of diaspora engagement, entrepreneurship and economic development. She leads business development and strategy at AiDiA, a diaspora-led organisation based in Hamburg, Germany and heads AiDiA Ventures, where she focuses on building sustainable business models and exploring ways to mobilise diaspora capital across entrepreneurship and investment pathways. Her work draws on professional experience in venture building, impact investing and business strategy.
Contact: LinkedIn
Photo copyright: Adore Adole-Itodo