Introduction: Outpaced – humanitarian action in the era of instant narratives

In an information environment distorted by rumour, manipulation and politically charged content, trust in humanitarian actors is increasingly fragile. Harmful information can undermine the perceived impartiality, neutrality and independence of humanitarian actors, fuel suspicion among communities and endanger staff, volunteers and the people they serve.

Humanitarian action now takes place in a contested information environment, one where trust is fragile and emotion often displaces fact. As TS Eliot cautioned, “When we do not know, or when we do not know enough, we tend always to substitute emotions for thoughts.” In the sentiment-driven economy of social media and now artificial intel- ligence (AI), principled humanitarian action is easily misunderstood or misrepresented – especially when it fails to align with dominant political or emotional narratives. In such settings, the consistent application of humanitarian principles becomes not only more difficult but more essential.

Information now competes not on the strength of accuracy, evidence or logic, but on its ability to provoke emotion – amusement, outrage and shock – and to change behaviours. Harmful content spreads rapidly and often unchecked, not because it is true, but because it feels true. Harmful information and distortion flourish where trust is already weakened. A single manipulated image, misleading headline or viral post can cast doubt on an organization’s motives or affiliations, reinforcing narratives that challenge principled humanitarian action and endanger humanitarian actors and the communities they serve.

This chapter begins with the principle of humanity – the foundation of all humanitarian work – and builds on Chapter 2, on page 69 where the focus was on trust and the principle of neutrality. It explores a growing strategic vulnerability: humanitarian action is designed to be deliberate, impartial and context specific. Digital information, by contrast, is immediate, emotional and virally amplified. This creates a dangerous speed mismatch. Humanitarian actors generally take time to verify facts, assess needs and coordinate responses. Harmful narratives and outrage, by contrast, travel in seconds – unconcerned with humanity, neutrality, accuracy, proportionality or consequence.

Humanitarian responses – at least the visibility around them – often arrive after public narratives have hardened, reputations damaged and trust eroded. The cost of delay is that narratives are settled early, often by politicized, dehumanizing or false informa- tion – creating operational risks. The humanitarian sector’s commitment to accurate, non-political communication is too often misread as indifference, lack of empathy, evasiveness or even sometimes complicity.

Rapid, emotionally charged narratives can shape donor, community, media and influ- encer perceptions before humanitarian organizations can establish the facts. Deliberate delays in communication – once a safeguard to establish facts and engage – can now erode humanitarian space for communication. Principled, timely engagement in the information environment is essential. What was once considered caution may now be a liability: inaction in the information space can cause more harm than timely, principled engagement. This raises difficult questions: is the slow pace of visibility around humanitarian action truly necessary or have organizations become institutionally over-cautious? Who is the audience for such communications today? Do some organ- izations still treat information as secondary to operations, even though it now shapes how operational success or failure is perceived?

As harmful narratives accelerate while communication about humanitarian action lags, the sector faces declining trust and shrinking operational space. Addressing this challenge requires confronting these dilemmas directly and adapting communication practices to keep pace with the evolving information environment.

7.1 Reaffirming and applying humanity in an age of distrust

If trust is rooted in vulnerability and expectation, humanity is grounded in respect and compassion. The principle of humanity is widely recognized as the foundational driver of humanitarian action. It is what compels humanitarian actors to act: to save lives, reduce suffering and uphold the dignity of people affected by crises. Among the core humanitarian principles, humanity is superior to the others because it captures the moral imperative, the core motivation and founding values of humanitarianism and underpins the other principles. In his 1979 Commentary on the Fundamental Principles,³ Pictet described humanity as requiring not only the preservation of life and physical integrity but also a respect for individual personality and dignity. Pictet emphasized that the principle must evolve with ‘circumstances’. The information age is one such circumstance.⁴

Philosopher Jonathan Glover in his exploration of moral identity and psychological dis- tance argues that humanity is rooted in our human responses: the capacity for respect and for sympathy, our ability to care about the suffering of others and to see them as fully human.⁵ Yet these responses are inherently fragile and it is precisely this fragility that harmful information exploits across social media platforms and beyond. Glover observes that sympathy can be overwhelmed, weakened, narrowed or eliminated by psychological or physical distance, by tribalism and belief or through the normalization of dehumanizing language. He warns that distance narrows human responses, cutting people off from whole groups of other people, while remoteness makes it natural to think all this is not really happening: “This enables the propaganda of atrocity, often directed against the dignity of victims”.⁶

Harmful information thrives in such environments and it erodes empathy, undermines solidarity and legitimizes exclusion or violence. The result is not only a more hostile envi- ronment for humanitarian operations, but one in which suffering is selectively acknowl- edged and humanitarian response becomes politically contested. As humanitarian space narrows, as physical proximity to affected populations for principled humanitarian actors becomes more difficult, restricted and/or delegitimized, the principle of humanity itself is under growing threat.

7.2 Dehumanization in the digital age

Dehumanization is no longer confined to explicit hate speech or fringe ideologies. It is increasingly embedded in everyday language, imagery and digital behaviours. It surfaces in manipulated images, inflammatory headlines and algorithmically amplified narratives that distort, erase or deny an individual’s humanity. In already fragile environments, the erosion of empathy is not just a side effect; it is often the intent. Dehumanization is not always overt. It can manifest subtly and systemically, including through digital profiling, unequal access to services or the commodification of personal data. At its core, dehumanization involves perceiving or treating someone as less than human – a denial of one or more elements of their humanity.⁷ While people never cease to be human, failing to recognize their humanity has real and often violent consequences. This includes reducing individuals to group identities (such as ‘migrant’, ‘refugee’), equating them with animals or vermin, or disregarding their legitimate human interests and agency. When such rhetoric goes unchecked, it not only diminishes empathy and compassion but also increases public support for exclusion, retribution or even violence. It undermines helping behaviours, obstructs reconciliation and fuels policies and practices that may violate international law.⁸

Dehumanizing language and imagery directed at humanitarian action pose serious risks. They can be used to justify or encourage the obstruction of aid, lead to the targeting of humanitarian organizations, criminalize humanitarian assistance and render entire populations invisible or undeserving in the eyes of the public or decision-makers. These risks are particularly acute when such rhetoric originates from official sources or when humanitarian access is framed as politically motivated or a threat to national security.

Upholding the principle of humanity in the digital era requires vigilance against the ways in which the information space and technology can unintentionally harm (online and offline), exclude or depersonalize. It demands sustained commitment to human presence and relational accountability – one reason why traditional humanitarian actors have long emphasized the importance of physical proximity and human connection to people in need.

Dehumanization not only challenges the principle of humanity, it also undermines impartiality, by denying the equal value of all people and the right to humanitarian response based solely on need. It casts suspicion on neutrality, framing humanitarian actors as aligned with or sympathetic to those who have been publicly stigmatized or discredited; it erodes perceptions of independence, as humanitarian intentions and affiliations are deliberately misrepresented.

The principle of humanity compels us to affirm the intrinsic value of every individual, especially when their dignity, rights and personhood are denied. Impartiality reinforces this imperative by requiring humanitarian action to be based solely on need. Neutrality and independence enable humanitarian actors to maintain focus on those people most affected, while navigating highly politicized environments and pressure to devalue or exclude individuals or groups. Together, they are not constraints but the basis for principled action, especially in complex contested spaces.

Yet even well-intentioned humanitarian actors can inadvertently replicate dehumanizing patterns if they are not actively mindful of the language they use or the power dynamics they reinforce. This is why principled humanitarianism must go beyond ethical com- mitments to uphold humanity: it must include deliberate efforts to detect and disrupt dehumanizing narratives, especially those normalized “in the undramatic episodes of the day-to-day”.¹⁰ The antidote to dehumanization is not simply more information – it is recognition. It is the act of restoring visibility and dignity to those denied it and reaffirming – through words, images and action – that no one is ever less than human. The humanitarian principles are not only capable of surviving today’s crisis of harmful information, they were designed to meet precisely this type of challenge.

7.3 Promoting tolerance in diverse and divided societies

Over 20 years ago, the Movement acknowledged the pervasive problems of discrimi- nation, intolerance and lack of respect for human diversity in many parts of the world through the 2003 Council of Delegates Resolution 9.¹¹ This called on all components of the Movement, within their respective mandates, to promote tolerance, non-discrimination and respect for diversity at the local, national and international levels. It outlined

1. Ensuring openness and diversity within the Movement itself, ensuring inclusive representation and internal practices that reflect humanitarian values.

2. Engaging externally to build understanding and insights, including building partnerships to foster dialogue and inclusion.

3. Promoting public dialogue and advocacy to foster social cohesion.

4. Strengthening preparedness, both proactive and reactive, for promoting tolerance and respect, with a focus on addressing the needs of marginalized and at-risk groups – supporting dialogue, trust-building among communities and coexistence.

5. Learning from experience and developing new initiatives both internally and with other organizations to identify best practices and foster collaboration in combating intolerance, discrimination and lack of respect for diversity.

Although adopted before the rise of today’s digital information ecosystems, the resolution’s relevance has only grown. What has changed – and now demands urgent attention – is the speed and scale at which harmful information spreads, rooted in the interplay between online and offline spaces. Digital platforms have become accelerants for harmful information – including intolerance, discrimination and lack of respect for diversity – that fuel division, mistrust and violence. These dynamics not only reinforce the very forms of intolerance the resolution sought to address, but they also directly undermine principled humanitarian action – distorting perceptions of neutrality, imped- ing access and putting humanitarian actors and communities at risk.

A renewed focus is therefore needed on how the Movement responds to these evolving challenges. Upholding the commitments of Resolution 9 today requires confronting the digital dimensions of intolerance and embedding the responses to harmful information into broader strategies for inclusion, protection and principled engagement – both online and offline. This is not only an internal imperative but also a necessary response to the broader information environment that shapes perceptions, access and the safety of humanitarian action.

Can you think of anything like yourself, you know, where there was a big news event and it kind of impacted how you felt about the country or the community? Well, the one that’s ongoing just now is there’s a lot of news stories about immigration and that kind of thing. I just think, personally, it makes me feel that I think we’re a little bit backward and not accepting them. And a lot of the stories that I’m seeing, especially on X (Twitter), for example, is anti-immigration, which I can’t quite figure out because it’s not a stance that I take. So, you know, it’s trying to send me down a particular line or trying to influence my thoughts on it, or brainwashing me into thinking another type of way.”

7.4 Neutrality at a cost: The price of not taking sides

In today’s volatile information environment, humanitarian organizations face growing challenges in communicating principled messaging. Even when grounded in facts and neutrality, such messaging is often drowned out, distorted or reframed as political or partial, especially on digital platforms. The polarizing comments and narratives that become attached to such statements, for example, in comment sections, leave little or no room for genuine engagement nor are they necessarily intended to. This dynamic shuts down the space for communication and engagement dialogue at precisely the time when it is most needed. This presents a serious perception gap: neutrality and impar- tiality are misunderstood, mistrusted or dismissed as detached or complicit. Meanwhile, silence or restraint in speaking out can be interpreted as moral indifference. Online dynamics, amplified by algorithms and public emotion, leave little room for nuance or principle-based explanations. As a result, neutrality itself can become controversial, ironically undermining its core purpose: enabling neutral humanitarian actors to “not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, religious or ideological nature”.

While neutrality is vital to preserving humanitarian space, it should not be invoked unthinkingly or at the expense of the most essential principle: humanity. Neutrality is often the bridge that allows the Red Cross and Red Crescent to operate where others cannot, yet at times it is applied without recognizing opportunities to raise a voice. Upholding both principles means navigating each decision carefully – balancing the need to remain neutral with the responsibility to speak out when issues fundamentally affect humanitarian action, always weighing the consequences of each action.

Critics often define neutrality by what it is not – failing to recognize that it is not neutral toward suffering. Neutrality is neither passive nor indifferent: it is a deliberate, principled stance aimed at building trust, protecting access and preserving humanitarian space. Refraining from engaging in ‘wars of words’ that could compromise acceptance, access and trust is very hard. Upholding neutrality today requires more than internal discipline; it demands careful management of perception, timing and consistency, as well as strate- gic decisions about where and how to communicate. At times, that may include disabling or disengaging with comment sections or stepping back from online engagement entirely, while deepening efforts offline in trust-building with affected communities.

Neutrality is a strategic and tactical tool that aims to enable humanitarian organizations “to enjoy the confidence of all.” The challenge today is that the “all” has become global, more immediate, more fragmented and increasingly polarized. Public discourse often imposes binary frames: for or against, us or them, victim or aggressor, innocent or guilty. These dichotomies flatten complex realities and place humanitarian actors under pressure to take such sides. For example,

• “For or against”: neutrality is often equated with complicity and any failure to publicly condemn is portrayed as a moral failing.

• “Us or them” : the expectation to align with a particular group’s narrative, perspective or cause undermines impartiality and oversimplifies complex situations.

• ““Victim or aggressor” : humanitarians may face pressure to assign blame, but their role is to provide principled assistance and protection based on need, not judgement.

• Innocent or guilty” : providing aid to those perceived as ‘guilty’ can be misinterpreted as support for their actions, posing a challenge to the principle of neutrality.

• “Suffering or staging” : humanitarian needs are often framed as exaggerated, fabricated, politically motivated or evidence that those suffering are a security risk or political tool, casting doubt on humanitarian responses and framing humanitarian actors as naïve, complicit or politically driven.

• “Deserving or undeserving”: this framing erodes empathy and casts suspicion on both affected populations and humanitarian actors, politicizing even the act of alleviating suffering.

In such binary framings, humanitarian needs are not simply acknowledged – they are scrutinized for motive. These narratives leave little space for neutrality and impartiality, which require humanitarians to act based on need, not affiliation, identity or perceived moral standing. Yet, articulating this is increasingly difficult in an information environ- ment that discourages nuance, favours emotive soundbites and overlooks the opera- tional consequences of alienating key actors or compromising access. Humanitarian actors, by contrast, must protect access to all sides, safeguard staff and volunteers operating in harm’s way and communicate in ways that do not endanger the very people they seek to assist. In this context, how suffering is framed – and by whom – has never been more difficult – or more consequential. These binary framings erode empathy and cast suspicion on both affected populations and the principled humanitarian actors who serve them. They undermine impartiality by implying that suffering must be politically justified or morally validated. Within such polarized discourse, even the act of responding to human suffering risks becoming politicized.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the suffering of Palestinian civilians in Gaza and of Israeli hostages and their families since the 7 October 2023 attack, including during the period of captivity. Public discourse was dominated by binary framings: ‘either you stand with the hostages or with Gazan civilians’; ‘either you condemn Hamas or you ignore Israeli suffering’; ‘either you speak out or you are complicit’. This narrative architecture leaves little space for nuance, and even less for neutral, impartial humanitarian action. Humanitarian actors who draw attention to the devastating toll of bombardments and the lack of food and other essentials for civilians in Gaza were accused of ignoring the suffering of the hostages and Israeli trauma. Conversely, those who spoke out about the plight of hostages may be seen as aligning with one side of the conflict. In both cases, humanitarian discourse and action are quickly politicized, judged not by adherence to humanitarian principles or operational impact, but by perceived allegiance.

This binary framing strikes at the heart of neutrality: it denies space for holding multiple truths at once with regard to human suffering – for example, that both the loss, depriva- tion and suffering caused by the taking, captivity and death of hostages from Israel and the loss, deprivation, suffering and death of civilians in Gaza are serious humanitarian concerns (each raising obligations of parties to armed conflict under international law). For humanitarian organizations, the imperative is not to choose sides, but to protect the dignity and rights of all affected people, irrespective of political narratives. Yet doing so, particularly in the public information space, requires careful navigation often with an emphasis on maintaining humanitarian access. Statements must be weighed not only for their content, but for how they may be received, misinterpreted or instrumentalized. In such contexts, neutrality does not mean silence; rather, it calls for speaking with clarity, precision and consistency, grounded firmly in principle, even when those principles risk being misrepresented.

Humanitarian organizations can speak out publicly without taking sides if this is done objectively, on the basis of principles and standards that apply equally to all. Neutrality does not mean silence in the face of suffering or violations. Criticism of humanitarian actors for not publicly condemning violations or suffering is often less about the principle of neutrality itself and more about judgement – specifically, a perceived over-reliance on confidential dialogue and persuasion or a reluctance to speak out due to a fear of backlash.¹⁴ In some cases, that criticism may be valid. In today’s polarized environment, this may require greater coordination among humanitarian actors in speaking out collectively and in carefully timing their communications.

Neutrality is also often burdened with connotations of distance and lack of empathy. Yet it does not imply an absence of feeling but rather a means of conveying compassion for human suffering in a way that does not take sides. Neutrality is also frequently misunderstood as requiring a perfect symmetry or equivalency in public statements or admonitions, even in situations of asymmetrical suffering or violations, particularly when there is mounting pressure for public condemnation. There are no easy answers and it takes courage to navigate this. Humanitarian organizations will continue to navigate neutrality differently depending on their mandates, modus operandi and the context. Avoiding the traps – especially in polarized environments – requires increased dialogue among principled humanitarian organizations, both to inform choices and to protect the space for action.¹⁵

Critiques of neutrality also often conflate all humanitarian organizations, overlook- ing that some are explicitly political while others are independent and guided by humanitarian principles. Failing to recognize these distinctions risks undermining trust in principled humanitarian organizations. Many humanitarian organizations address this by adhering to the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Disaster Relief and other standards that reinforce the integrity of principled humanitarian action.

As humanitarian scholar Hugo Slim has observed: “the idea of political neutrality is not legally or semantically embedded in humanitarian aid, even if the last thirty years of international relations has tended to promote it as such. There are different ways to be humanitarian. Neutral humanitarians like the ICRC and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement … and non-neutral humanitarians. People suffering in war usually need both, and, if the world moves into a new era of binary political commitments that set liberal democracy against illiberal authoritarianism, then we can expect many people’s political convictions to render their neutrality impossible, and we will see a surge in non-neutral humanitarians around the world. Non-neutral humanitarians will rightly be saving lives and protecting people within social movements that are politically positioned as democratic, authoritarian, socialist, Islamist, or green”.¹⁶

Moving forward, humanitarian space must be preserved for both neutral, impartial and independent humanitarian action and non-neutral humanitarianism – keeping people in need at the centre. Those in need should not be reduced to political arguments, but recognized as individuals entitled to respect for their humanity, rights, legal protection and agency, including humanitarian response based on need.

7.5 Patriotism and humanitarian principles

National Societies are deeply rooted in their countries. They carry the name of the nation, use the emblem with national identifiers and serve as auxiliaries to their public authorities in the humanitarian field. Patriotism can be a powerful force – motivating people to volunteer, mobilize resources and foster local trust.

Yet in humanitarian action, patriotism must always be balanced with the Fundamental principles, particularly humanity, neutrality, independence and impartiality. On one hand, joining a National Society to serve one’s community can rightly be seen as an act of patriotism. On the other hand, in situations of armed conflict, adhering to neutrality and impartiality may be perceived by some as undermining patriotic duty. This tension becomes especially acute when National Society staff or volunteers are present on both sides of a frontline: if they embrace nationalistic rhetoric or sentiment over the fundamental principles, the unity of the National Society – and indeed the cohesion of the Movement – risks splintering.

Upholding the fundamental principles – especially in armed conflicts – will never be easy, but this commitment is essential to protect humanitarian space and the Movement’s ability to serve people in need, regardless of nationality, political affiliation or other status. In a polarized information environment, adherence to these principles also acts as a powerful safeguard against harmful information – reinforcing trust, credibility and the collective identity of the Movement.

7.6 Independence as a condition for trust

The principle of independence is closely linked to neutrality. It requires humanitarian organizations to remain detached from political, military, economic or religious influence and from the strategic agendas attached to them. Independence is, in many ways, the practical demonstration of neutrality – a condition that enables principled action in highly politicized environments. In today’s interconnected and interdependent world, however, independence is not always absolute but it must be safeguarded and demon- strated in context-specific ways. Doing so is essential both to ensure impartial action and to maintain neutrality.

Narratives that undermine perceived independence include:

• “They’re just an arm of the government.” Humanitarian organizations may be portrayed as extensions of national policy, particularly when their governance is closely linked to state actors or operations that rely on government funding or infrastructure.

• “They follow donor agendas.” This narrative implies that aid priorities are driven by political or strategic interests of donors rather than humanitarian needs, casting doubt on organizational autonomy.

• “They cooperate with the military, they can’t be independent.” In complex emergencies or civil–military settings, any coordination with armed actors can be interpreted as complicity or co-optation.

• “They changed their position after pressure.” When an organization revises public positions, especially in response to criticism, it may be interpreted as the result of external influence rather than principled adaptation.

7.7 Impartiality as a compass

The principle of impartiality, like neutrality, is frequently misunderstood and the two are often conflated, yet they are distinct. Impartiality requires that aid be provided solely according to need, with priority given to endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, putting the “most urgent cases of distress” first.

Its ethical foundation lies in the equal worth and rights of all human beings. In practice, impartiality translates into two operational obligations: aid must be distributed without discrimination and relief must be proportional to the level of need – the greater the need, the greater the response.

Barriers to impartiality arise for example when authorities or non-state actors obstruct assistance to populations under the control of another party – whether out of ideological conviction, political calculation or fear that it may benefit the adversary. Famines have been deliberately caused through such obstructions. When examining impartiality in the context of harmful information, several narratives emerge that undermine it. Whether rooted in harmful information or misunderstanding, these challenge the understanding of the core principle of providing aid solely based on need. For example:

• “They are helping the enemy.” Humanitarian actors are accused of favouring one side, especially when assisting populations under the control of an adversary. This delegitimizes aid and is often used to justify blocking access.

• “They only show one side of the suffering.” When humanitarian communication focuses on particular groups or geographies they can be interpreted or distorted as evidence of bias, fuelling claims of partiality. At the same time, efforts to appear “balanced” risk creating false equivalence between situations of suffering or responsibility, further complicating perceptions of neutrality and credibility.

• “Donors dictate who gets helped.” The perception that humanitarian aid is driven by political or donor interests or priorities rather than humanitarian needs feeds scepticism about whether aid is truly impartial and needs based.

• “They’re part of the West’s agenda.” In polarized or post-colonial contexts, humanitarian organizations can be portrayed as aligned with foreign political or ideological goals.

• “If they were impartial, why aren’t they helping us?” Communities not receiving aid may assume bias, especially in the absence of transparent needs assessments or clear communication about operational decisions and constraints.

To uphold the principle of impartiality in the face of harmful information, humanitarian organizations must ensure proactive and sustained measures, including anticipating instrumentalized narratives that exploit perceptions of bias or selective aid, and preparing clear, principled communication lines in advance (including prebunking). Transparent communication is essential, particularly around how needs are assessed and how decisions about aid allocation are made. Internally, building digital and media literacy among staff and volunteers is critical to enabling early detection and effective response to accusations of partiality. At the same time, organizations must actively monitor information ecosystems to identify and counter distorted portrayals before they gain traction and erode trust. Impartiality requires that assistance be provided solely on the basis of need, without discrimination or political consideration – a principle that safeguards humanity itself and ensures that no one is left behind because of who they are or where they stand.

7.8 Organizational integrity: Internal alignment with principles

Upholding humanitarian principles begins with internal organizational coherence and credibility. Transparency, accountability and consistency are essential anchors that reinforce trust and legitimacy – both within an organization and in the eyes of the communities it serves. At the heart of this is integrity: the alignment of words and actions with humanitarian values, even when doing so is inconvenient or costly. Integrity is not just about avoiding misconduct: it is about making principled choices, maintaining ethical standards under pressure and resisting the temptation to compromise values for short-term gain.

Leadership plays a central role in modelling integrity and principled behaviour, setting the tone for inclusive, respectful and values-driven practices across all levels of the organization. When integrity is embedded in decision-making, communication and daily operations, it creates a culture of trust – one that is resilient in the face of scrutiny, harmful information and political pressure.

As information ecosystems continue to evolve, building digital literacy among staff and volunteers is increasingly vital. This includes the ability to identify and respond to harm- ful information, understand the dynamics of online narratives and engage responsibly on social media and in face-to-face engagements. When volunteers are equipped to navigate these spaces with confidence and integrity, principled humanitarian action is more likely to be consistently upheld – whether in person or online.

Maintaining volunteer motivation and trust requires clear, principled communication that resonates with shared humanitarian values. Volunteers are often the most visible representatives of an organization in their communities, thus how they communicate and behave directly shapes public perceptions of legitimacy and trust. Regular, open dialogue – grounded in the organization’s mission and principles – reinforces their sense of purpose and belonging, particularly in complex or politicized environments.

Training, guidance and supportive leadership are crucial to ensure that all forms of engagement reflect neutrality, impartiality, independence and humanity, while also protecting staff and volunteers from becoming unintentional amplifiers of harmful infor- mation or targets of such campaigns. At the same time, there is an important duty of care when staff and volunteers are targeted by, or otherwise affected by, harmful information.

7.9 A framework for applying humanitarian principles in the information age

Building on the 1979 Pictet commentary on the fundamental principles and the 2013 World Disasters Report matrix on the seven fundamental principles, the following updated framework highlights how these principles are upheld – or challenged – in the context of harmful information. It reflects the growing intersection between harmful information and humanitarian values in today’s digital and information-saturated envi- ronment. The framework acknowledges both the evolving threats and opportunities posed by today’s information landscape. It underscores the imperative for humanitarian actors not only to uphold the four humanitarian principles – and within the Movement the seven fundamental principles – but also to apply them in adaptive and context- specific ways that respond to the specific challenges posed by harmful information.

Table 7.1 Fundamental principles in the context of harmful information

7.9.1 Decision-making framework: Responding to harmful information while upholding humanitarian principles

To respond effectively to the challenge of harmful information, organizations must be equipped to act in ways that minimize harm while upholding the humanitarian prin- ciples of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence. This decision-making framework offers a structured approach to guide analysis, reflection and principled, context-specific action.

Step 1: Pre-crisis preparedness

• Train teams in proactive monitoring, including rumour tracking, perception tracking and narrative mapping.
• Build trusted local partnerships before a crisis to enable credible community-led amplification and establish feedback loops.
• Identify trusted voices and credible messengers within communities, as well as potential threat actors or sources of harmful information, and map their influence.
• Develop internal protocols for responding to harmful information anchored in humanitarian principles, ‘do no harm’, accountability and context sensitivity, while recognizing the importance of timeliness.
• Ensure governance, leadership, staff and volunteers at international, national, district and branch levels have the knowledge, skills and tools to identify and promote principled humanitarian action.
• Identify priority contexts where serious risks or gaps in principled humanitarian action exist and integrate this awareness into preparedness planning

Step 2: Assess the nature and impact of harmful information

Use guiding questions to understand the type of harmful information and its potential consequences (impacts and harms), for example:

• Is the information factually false, misleading or harmful by implication?
• Who is the primary audience (e.g., affected communities, state actors, donors, media)?
• Who are the key voices shaping the narrative – trusted messengers or potential threat actors – and what influence do they hold?
• What is the likely or observable impact (e.g., reduced access, threats to staff, rejection of aid, reputational damage)?

Output : Categorize the risk and/or threat level (e.g., low-risk rumour, operational disruption, challenge to access, legitimacy or safety).

Step 3: Evaluate the ethical and operational stakes

Assess the key tensions between action and inaction. For example:

• Would responding compromise neutrality or risk being perceived as politically motivated? How can this be mitigated?
• Would remaining silent undermine humanity or allow harm to escalate?
• What are the potential safety implications for staff, volunteers and communities?
• How might either response or lack thereof affect trust with communities, partners and stakeholders?

Table 7.2Example matrix to map trade-offs between response and potential harm

Step 4: Consider the messenger and the method

Guiding questions:

• Who should respond and how?
• Should the organization respond directly or should trusted local actors take the lead?
• What channel(s) or format(s) are most appropriate (e.g., social media, bilateral/in-person dialogue, third-party endorsement)?
• Could the response unintentionally amplify the harmful narrative?
• Would a third-party or coalition message reduce perceptions of partiality or strengthen the response?

Tactical options : Quiet correction through community liaisons; co-produced content with local influencers or respected community voices; fact-based public statements using neutral, non-confrontational language; silence (accompanied by internal documentation and monitoring) recognizing this may backfire.

Step 5: Align with the context and dynamics

Ensure responses are sensitive to the broader sociopolitical environment:

• What are the political sensitivities or risks of backlash in the context?
• Are there power asymmetries (e.g., post-colonial legacies, racial, gender- based dynamics) influencing how responses are perceived?
• Could engagement in information correction reinforce perceptions of organizational arrogance?

Principled reflection:

• Are the same standards and principles being applied equally based on need across different groups or communities?
• Is the response informed by local knowledge and trusted relationships in the community?

Step 6: Decide, act, document and reassess

Make an informed and principled decision:

• Choose the course of action that causes the least harm and best aligns with humanitarian principles.

• Act with consistency, humility and clarity.

• Document the decision-making process for accountability and institutional learning.

• Reassess regularly, especially if new actors emerge, narratives shift or risks escalate.

• Measure impact on trust.

To effectively counter harmful information, humanitarian actors must shift from a reactive to a proactive stance and also from defensive to offensive approaches, if appropriate. This shift begins by integrating information preparedness into operational preparedness – anticipating harmful narratives, pre-positioning factual content and empowering field teams and volunteers to communicate swiftly when needed. A key component is the decentralization of trusted voices: building the capacity of local volun- teers and other actors and communities to speak first, faster and more credibly. These actors are often more trusted than international organizations and better positioned to respond in real time. At the same time, humanitarian organizations must define what constitutes ‘principled speed’ – ensuring that urgency and timeliness do not come at the expense of neutrality, accuracy or trust.

Establishing clear thresholds for when, where and how to engage can help ensure that rapid responses remain both defensible and ethical. Finally, lasting impact requires strengthening the understanding of principled humanitarian action in information ecosystems by engaging proactively with digital platforms, technology actors, media and civil society to shape the environments in which information circulates – rather than reacting only after harm has already occurred.

7.9.2 From principles to practical measures – community engagement and accountability

Upholding principled humanitarian action requires shaping how humanitarian organiza- tions engage with communities, particularly in environments affected by harmful infor- mation. Drawing on the IFRC’s community engagement and accountability approach, the following measures are essential to translating principles into meaningful practice:

• Contextualizing approaches: Develop strategies to reflect local dynamics and information landscapes.

• Ensuring inclusion, including women, youth and older people: Involve local actors from the outset, invite participation and create safe spaces for dialogue in all stages of engaging with communities.

• Prioritizing communication and transparency: Plan how information will be shared. Share information regularly in accessible formats and languages, using channels trusted by the community.

• Designing responsive feedback systems: Provide timely, safe and confidential ways for people to share concerns or report abuse, including mechanisms for handling sensitive issues separately and confidentially. These should leverage existing local feedback mechanisms and be timely.

• Embedding accountability: Build community participation – including with the most marginalized and socially excluded groups – into programme design, monitoring and evaluation. Learn from feedback and allow space to process it and adjust policy and programming accordingly.

• Reinforcing community engagement and accountability: Make this a non-negotiable part of recruitment, performance, reporting and partnership standards.

• Sharing information openly: Affected populations should have access to clear details on how decisions are made, what resources are available and how aid is being delivered, including partnership arrangements, response actions, targeting criteria, funding levels and other issues that affect them.

7.10 Influencers: Connectors and dividers

Factors that influence communities can act as both connectors and dividers and must be carefully analysed as part of any engagement strategy. Understanding how these forces interact – and how community engagement can either reinforce or mitigate them – is essential to designing and adapting approaches that are context sensitive and ethically sound.¹⁷

A connector is an individual, group or structure that helps build bridges across societal divisions. Connectors contribute to local preparedness and response efforts by fostering relationships, promoting trust and generating positive interactions between different parts of a community. They enhance social cohesion and resilience and can amplify the reach and legitimacy of humanitarian efforts.

In contrast, a divider has a vested interest in preserving tension, exclusion or conflict. Dividers exploit or exacerbate societal fractures – such as those based on ethnicity, political affiliation, gender or religion – resulting in mistrust, harmful information and polarization. Their actions can pose serious risks to staff, volunteers and the integrity of humanitarian action.

Community engagement strategies should be designed – and continuously re-evaluated – based on a clear understanding of how connectors and dividers¹⁸ shape perceptions and behaviours. This is critical to applying the ‘do no harm’ principle in practice Chapter 4: section 4.3 on page 150. Engagement that inadvertently strengthens dividers or bypasses connectors can undermine humanitarian objectives and cause harm to the very populations it seeks to support.

The connectors and dividers framing is especially relevant today in the context of influencers – whether online personalities, community leaders, media figures or local authority figures – because of their significant power to shape public perception, amplify narratives and influence behaviour at scale. In today’s hyper-connected information environment, influencers can function as either connectors or dividers, depending on their intent, messaging and the trust they command.

Influencers who promote social cohesion, accurate information, inclusion and empathy can serve as powerful connectors. When aligned with humanitarian values, they can:

• help bridge divides between humanitarian actors and communities
• dispel rumours and misinformation
• encourage trust in organizations and public health measures
• support local peacebuilding and solidarity efforts
• amplify marginalized voices and foster dialogue across communities.

For example: a local TikTok creator addressing harmful information about aid eligibility, a respected community leader countering hate speech online or a youth influencer explaining humanitarian principles in relatable terms.

Conversely, influencers who spread harmful narratives, reinforce stereotypes or exploit community tensions can act as dividers. They may:

• fuel mistrust toward aid agencies or certain groups
• amplify harmful information, xenophobia or conspiracy theories
• increase polarization or fear, especially in conflict-affected settings
• undermine community cohesion or cooperation with humanitarian efforts
• pose security risks to humanitarian workers or volunteers.

For example, a social media figure spreading conspiracy theories about humanitarian motives or a local community leader or official framing aid as biased or politically motivated.

In the age of harmful information, principled humanitarian action depends not just on what is done, but on how transparently, inclusively and accountably it is carried out. In contested spaces where narratives clash and principles are often misunderstood, trust must be earned through consistent demonstration of humanitarian values and effectiveness in practice.

7.11 Reaffirming humanitarian principles in the age of digital tools

The humanitarian principles have long served as an essential compass in navigating complex operational and political environments. Far from being static ideals, they provide a dynamic framework that has guided humanitarian organizations in their responses across diverse crises and contexts. In the digital age – particularly amid the rise of harmful information – these principles are more relevant than ever. The sector’s credibility depends on effectiveness, transparency, clarity and visible adherence to humanitarian principles, underpinned by accountability to affected people and coher- ence across actors. Humanitarian actors must be able to explain the objectivity with which needs and responses are assessed and prioritized, as well as the proportionality of the response to existing needs.

Today, digital platforms are increasingly creating distance between humanitarians and the people they serve. In some cases, they are replacing direct human engagement altogether, which is especially troubling in settings where empathy, understanding and trust are essential. This tension is heightened with the use of AI which, by design, seeks to replicate or replace human judgement. As technology mediates more interactions, the risk increases that the fundamentally human connection of humanitarian work – listening, understanding and respecting dignity in complex realities – may diminish. Empathy cannot be automated and should remain human, not machine driven. As AI evolves to emulate the human, the human proximity must remain and not be sidelined. Dignity – central to the principle of humanity – is lived, subjective and recognized only through human presence and interaction. It cannot be predefined or interpreted by algorithms.¹⁹

This makes the responsible and principled use of digital tools all the more critical. Drawing on a mapping in the 2013 World Disasters Report, the benefits and risks of digital technology to the fundamental principles can be adapted to the specific challenges posed by harmful information. This would provide a practical framework for:

• planning and designing programmes aligned with the fundamental principles

• advocacy on principled digital transformation

• policy-making and risk analysis for reliable information

• training humanitarian actors on how to use digital tools to strengthen trust, reduce exposure to biased narratives and protect affected populations.

This provides insights for how humanitarian organizations can leverage digital tools to better identify needs, empower communities and enhance accountability – while actively mitigating the risks of harmful information.

Concluding remarks: Principled action requires more than declarations

Declaring adherence to the fundamental and humanitarian principles is not enough. Access to affected populations and acceptance of humanitarian actors must be contin- ually earned. They depend on humility, principled behaviour, operational effectiveness and impact, and timely, transparent engagement and communication. Words must align with actions. Without this alignment, safe and sustained access – essential for principled humanitarian action – becomes increasingly difficult to secure.

Upholding humanitarian principles today means more than silent adherence. It requires actively promoting, explaining and embodying them in every context – including the digital sphere, where harmful information and politicized narratives quickly erode trust.

In an era of accelerating technology, human responses such as empathy, respect and moral restraint are more critical than ever. As philosopher Jonathan Glover observed, these moral resources help people exercise self-restraint, respect the dignity of others and care for their suffering and well-being. He described them as “the tendency to respond to people with certain kinds of respect – as members of our community, as human beings” and as “sympathy – caring about the miseries and the happiness of others, and perhaps feeling a degree of identification with them.”²⁰

Today, harmful information is not a communication challenge; it is a threat to humanitarian action and requires a whole-of-society and whole-of-organization approach. Where humanitarian communicators once focused on facilitating information sharing with affected communities and on engaging donors, they are now increasingly tasked with detecting, responding to and trying to mitigate harmful content. Yet many organizations remain underprepared for the scale and sophistication of today’s information threats.

Technology can undoubtedly streamline humanitarian operations, but it also raises difficult questions about whether it risks dehumanizing humanitarian action – replacing listening with automation or judgement with algorithmic logic. Writing in 1999, long before today’s digital transformation, Glover presciently concluded in his book Humanity:

It is too late to stop the technology. It is to the psychology that we should now turn."²¹

Glover is saying that the danger lies less in the machines themselves than in how human psychology responds to the power they give us. The survival of humanity depends not on stopping technology, but on understanding and strengthening the moral psychology that restrains its misuse. Just as Glover emphasizes that moral restraint and psychology are central once technology cannot be stopped, the Movement Appeal to States underscores that humanitarian principles – humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence – serve as psychological and ethical safeguards in complex and high-pressure environments. In a polarized information landscape, where narratives can manipulate perception and inflame divisions, adherence to these principles acts as a moral and operational compass, guiding actors to resist pressures, make impartial decisions, and maintain trust. Essentially, while we cannot control the speed or reach of harmful information (the ‘technology’), we can rely on principled humanitarian action (the ‘psychology’) to ensure that responses remain ethical, impartial and focused on human need. In today’s landscape, where trust is fragile and harmful information can undo principled efforts in moments, Glover’s call is more urgent than ever.

The Movement has enormous capacity to act as a force amplifier for engagement through its staff and volunteers. National Societies seek to serve as trusted influencers who, by modelling the same positive behaviours online as they do offline in their communities, can help build healthier societies and shape norms of participation and response in the digital space.

Asks, aims and recommendations

Recommendations

States and policy-makers

• Safeguard humanitarian space in legislation, regulation and preparedness frameworks, ensuring the fundamental and humanitarian principles are respected in both digital and offline contexts.

• Avoid instrumentalizing humanitarian actors in partisan or political agendas.

• Publicly reaffirm and support the independence, impartiality and neutrality of humanitarian organizations.

• Ensure humanitarian exemptions in sanctions, counter-terrorism and regulatory measures that might impede principled action.

Technology platforms

• Monitor and prevent harmful information targeting humanitarian action, with safeguards that respect fundamental rights.

• Ensure transparency, tools and crisis protocols that enable principled humanitarian engagement online.

• Act rapidly to address harassment and harmful information targeting humanitarian staff, volunteers and people in need.

Humanitarian actors

• Develop guidance for principled engagement in contested digital and online spaces, anticipating instrumentalized narratives and preparing clear communication lines in advance.

• Reaffirm and communicate fundamental and humanitarian principles across platforms, avoiding partisan or political alignment.

• Model adherence to the fundamental principles in words, behaviours and actions across all Movement components.

• Equip staff and volunteers with digital security training, psychosocial support and information and media literacy to detect and respond to harmful narratives early.

• Place renewed focus on addressing evolving challenges of intolerance²²

  across the Movement.

• Foster reflection and learning on communication and humanitarian diplomacy, embedding humanitarian principles in responses to harmful information.

• Involve community leaders and volunteers as validators and messengers, running sustained campaigns that highlight local impact and principled humanitarian action rather than relying only on reactive responses.

Communities and local leaders

• Act as trusted intermediaries reinforcing impartiality and bridging divides.

• Identify polarized spaces and harmful information that threaten humanitarian access, trust and safety.

• Co-create and amplify local narratives that reflect humanitarian values, ensuring humanitarian action remains responsive to community needs.

Endnotes