In today’s world, the question isn’t whether we face escalating systemic risks but how we can begin to respond to them better. Recognizing the urgent need for better responses, ASRA set out to explore what a good systemic response looks like in practice. Our task was to identify patterns of success across diverse case studies—focusing on pathways and good practices that protect both ecological systems and human communities from escalating threats.
To guide this work, ASRA’s Systemic Risk Response (SRR) Working Group co-developed a comprehensive set of assessment criteria that is grounded in ASRA’s Principles for Systemic Risk Assessment and Response. These 14 criteria transform broad principles into specific actions in the context of any response while also creating an actionable framework to assess whether interventions can be considered as truly systemic responses. By "responses," we mean any deliberate actions taken to mitigate, prepare for, adapt to, or transform away from the harms of systemic risks. What makes these criteria distinctive is their practical specificity—offering tangible ways to integrate systems thinking, navigate complexity, and incorporate multiple knowledge systems into concrete plans and actions.
The working group gathered examples of responses at multiple levels—local (community or city), regional (state, province, or district), national (country-wide), and international (global cooperation). Potential case studies were then organized into eight key types: institutions, coalitions, policies, frameworks, programs, financial mechanisms, legal structures, and methodologies, and assessed against the SRR criteria. While we did not expect any case study to fully meet all 14 criteria, there was strong evidence of alignment to the criteria relating to justice, compassion, and the integration of diverse perspectives, and centering of vulnerable communities, in many of those that we analysed. For criteria not yet met, we noted promising patterns and indicators that indicate potential for change yet to be realized. From all these examples, we can draw important and timely lessons on how certain criteria were effectively upheld.
One theme emerges clearly from these case studies: no single institution—regardless of its resources or mandate—can address systemic risks in isolation. A second important theme is that while institutional leadership and buy-in is critical for mainstreaming and achieving results at scale, transformative change often begins at the grassroots level, where communities experience risks within their local contexts and can be uniquely positioned to contribute their expertise and lived experience to inform and craft appropriate responses.
These case studies reveal a third powerful insight: the most effective risk responses don’t just mitigate harm; they create ripple effects, unlocking multiple—sometimes unexpected—benefits and pathways to transformative futures. Too often, risk governance is framed as disaster avoidance, but these initiatives—from Quito to South Africa—demonstrate how addressing systemic risk can foster resilience, equity, and abundance rather than simply preventing harms.
Another element that surfaced from our analysis is that each of these success stories shares a radically pragmatic approach to navigating interconnected crises. None waited for perfect conditions or the ideal moment for intervention. Instead, they worked with available resources and existing capacities, coupled with a strong vision of what could be, to find practical paths forward in imperfect circumstances.
Effective systemic risk governance in today’s world therefore doesn’t require elaborate new bureaucracies or complicated processes—it requires bridges. Bridges between local and global, formal and informal, traditional and innovative. What these case studies show us is that the most meaningful responses to systemic risk don’t always start in boardrooms, and they don’t end there either. Solutions emerge where conversations happen—from park benches where communities voice concerns to policy tables where decisions take shape.
Today, we’re publishing the first set in a series of these stories—explore them here. We’ll continue adding case studies and stories that share practical lessons for creating governance systems that are integrated, participatory, and adaptive enough to navigate our complex world, revealing concrete outcomes rather than abstract promises, and—we hope—help to reframe the narrative on who can take meaningful action on systemic risks, and how.
