It is a fact that the maintenance costs required for headquarters are a persistent challenge for many international humanitarian NGOs. Although they rarely make headlines, they can significantly influence impact and remain a focal point in discussions and donor negotiations. Overloaded central offices, bloated structures, and rigid legacy systems often drain resources intended for field operations. And while donors push for more efficiency, substantial resources continue to be allocated to maintaining structures that were built for a different era of aid that may no longer align with the evolving landscape of humanitarian needs and operational realities.
At the same time, when attempting to meet donor requirements to reduce program budgets, cutting country or regional operational costs, including staffing, has become a common reflex –an approach that often prioritizes bureaucratic structures over truly optimizing resources for the communities served. But what if this was turned on its head? What if HQ was made leaner, more agile, and truly fit for purpose? Here’s how this could be achieved in eight steps:
Step 1. Decentralize decision-making — Trust the field
HQ often functions as an empire of gatekeepers. Many decisions, such as budget approvals, program technical designs, recruitment, even minor process tweaks, are funneled through layers of central oversight. This creates a gap between the management of daily operations at the country level and HQ oversight, leading to delays, frustration, and unnecessary overhead costs, particularly in terms of time.
What is the solution to this situation? What if power was pushed closer to the action? Decentralizing decision-making by shifting the authority to regional offices not only enhances efficiency but also reduces costs by eliminating unnecessary layers of approval thereby reducing delays, and streamlining operational expenses.
In my opinion, the operational direction of a country’s operations should be led by those closest to the action. I’m not saying HQ shouldn’t play a role in decision-making, rather they should focus on support, empowerment, strategic decisions, and setting global policies and standards.
Step 2. Reimagine HQ roles — From controllers to enablers
Too often, HQ positions exist to review, monitor, and validate activities, essentially duplicating the functions already handled at the country and regional levels This should not be perceived as governance but rather as expensive and redundant supervision.
The sector needs to make a fundamental shift: HQ should enable, not control. Instead of reviewing reports, it should focus on adding strategic value such as helping country teams to access funding, improving the efficiency of processes, and innovating service delivery. In many INGOs, there are program technical staff at the country level who are mirrored by a regional layer and then overseen by a technical unit at HQ, with all involved having similar expertise.
Furthermore, in numerous cases, these roles simply duplicate efforts rather than adding any distinct value.
INGOs looking to optimize resources must review these roles, and consolidate and realign personnel to ensure that HQ structures remain fit for purpose. By reducing redundant roles, and decentralizing functions, salary expenditures and office costs can be reduced which would free up resources for frontline programs. Otherwise, INGOs risk maintaining an inefficient structure that drains resources while creating bottlenecks instead of introducing operational efficiencies.
If a role isn’t directly adding field value, does it really need to exist?
Step 3. Reduce office costs — Do you really need that space?
The post-COVID world has shown that operations continue to move forward even when teams work remotely, demonstrating the potential for a more flexible approach. In many INGOs, especially those based in Europe, remote work modalities are already in place, with staff spending one to three days working from home. Yet, these organizations continue to maintain office spaces in expensive locations such as New York, Geneva, London, and Paris – expenditure that should be critically reviewed in light of shifting work modalities and evolving operational priorities. Why is this still so? Is it nostalgia for boardrooms? Legacy contracts? Fear of losing status?
Reducing office footprints, moving to shared spaces, or shifting to remote-first models can save INGOs significant amounts of funding. Some organizations have even gone fully virtual, with HQ teams working remotely across different countries. The result? More flexible, cost-effective, and resilient operations.
Step 4. Audit your technology — Cut what you don’t need
Here’s an uncomfortable truth: INGOs often spend too much on tech solutions that they don’t need. Multiple project management tools, overlapping ERP systems, expensive software licenses – the costs of these quickly add up. Many of these digital tools are implemented without proper consideration for country-level realities, where weak internet infrastructure, lack of digital literacy, or even incompatibility with field operations make them impractical. Instead of enhancing efficiency, they often create bottlenecks, frustration, and reliance on workarounds.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t digitalize – far from it. We absolutely should but with a focus on practicality, accessibility, and ensuring that technology improves rather than complicates operations.
A simple fix? Audit software use. Remove underutilized platforms. Consolidate systems. Move to open-source or lower-cost alternatives where possible. And, most importantly, train staff to maximize the tools you do keep.
Tech should streamline work, not inflate budgets.
Step 5. Reduce unnecessary travel — Virtual isn’t just for COVID
HQ travel budgets remain bloated. Staff fly across continents for meetings that could have been held virtually. This is a luxury that humanitarian organizations can no longer afford.
Does every onboarding need to happen in person at HQ or a regional office? Are annual meetings for hundreds of staff truly necessary? Should every workshop require in-person attendance in a distant location?
We could consider travelling expenditure in the same way – visa costs, added to flight costs, accommodation costs, per diems, facility costs, refreshments, logistical expenses, and the time cost for everyone involved. That adds up to a significant amount of money per person per trip. Is that trip really necessary?
It’s time to redefine what ‘essential’ travel really means. Investing in better virtual collaboration tools, structured online onboarding programs, and regionally based training hubs can significantly reduce the need for costly travel while still ensuring meaningful engagement and capacity building.
Step 6. Share services with other INGOs
Duplication is the enemy of efficiency. Many INGOs operate in the same locations, countries, regions at the same time, running parallel admin, supply chain, HR, and IT functions – each with its own separate HQ structure.
Consider the inefficiencies involved – separate compliance teams, duplicated HR departments, and overlapping IT systems but all managing similar tasks being undertaken in the same regions.
What if INGOs rethink back-office operations by merging non-essential administrative functions across organizations? Shared compliance and technical advisors, digital hubs, centralized HR services, and joint procurement frameworks could drastically cut costs while allowing each INGO to retain its operational independence.
INGOs should also explore collaborative models, including joint operations and joint country programs, which can drive efficiency, reduce costs, and foster stronger coordination between organizations. The question isn’t whether it’s possible, but whether we have the will to make it happen.
Step 7. Recover more costs from donors — In a smart way
Donors push for ‘value for money’ but too often, they impose overhead caps that make it more difficult for INGOs to sustain operations. That said, many INGOs fail to fully recover allowable costs.
Is there a solution? I suggest smarter budgeting with a clear assessment of HQ’s role and value. Ensure full cost recovery by embedding HQ expenses into project budgets transparently while continually evaluating whether these costs align with organizational priorities. Advocate for donors to cover essential support costs, but INGOs must also ensure that HQ structures are fit for purpose. This isn’t about inflating administrative expenses – it’s about making HQ lean, effective, and genuinely fulfilling its intended strategic role.
Step 8. Change the HQ mindset — From entitlement to efficiency
At its core, reducing HQ costs isn’t just about cutting budgets – it’s about shifting the culture of INGOs. Too many HQ teams operate as if their structures are untouchable as if their roles are too essential to be questioned.
This mindset within INGOs must evolve. Adopting zero-based budgeting could be a key step in this transformation, ensuring that every expense is justified based on current needs rather than historical spending patterns. Every dollar spent at HQ is a dollar not spent where it’s needed most.
Final question: If your HQ costs were to be cut by 30% overnight, what would you do differently? The reality is, this shift is already happening driven by donor fatigue, widening funding gaps, and increasing pressure on INGOs to justify every dollar spent. The question is no longer theoretical; it is urgent. If funding continues to shrink, INGOs must proactively reassess their structures rather than being forced into reactive cuts. So, why aren’t we doing this already?
Leaner HQs are the future
Reducing HQ costs isn’t just an efficiency exercise – it’s a moral imperative. The humanitarian sector is under pressure like never before. Funding is shrinking. Needs are growing. The old approach to running INGOs with top-heavy HQs, excessive bureaucracy, and inefficient structures is no longer sustainable.
We stand at a crossroads: Reinvent how we operate or risk irrelevance.
Because, at the end of the day, no one in a refugee camp cares about how many directors, teams, or departments are at HQ. What matters is whether aid reaches them efficiently, whether their needs are met, and whether the humanitarian mission is upheld with integrity. If our structures hinder rather than help, then we must ask ourselves: Are we here to serve the system, or are we here to serve the people?
