Looking ahead to 2026, many analysts describe a world marked less by a smooth return to stability and more by what the UNDP characterizes as conditions of “systemic uncertainty,” in which economic volatility, political fragmentation, and climate pressure interact in a mutually reinforcing way (UNDP, 2023). Global outlooks from institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank point to positive but uneven growth, with persistent risks linked to inflation, trade tensions, and constrained public finances, while enduring inequalities continue to erode social cohesion and trust in institutions (IMF, 2025; World Bank, 2025). For civil society and nonprofits, this is not just a macroeconomic backdrop; it is the operational context in which decisions are made about programs, partnerships, and, in many cases, about organizational survival itself.
In this environment, the idea of 2026 as a simple “post-crisis” phase is misleading. The year more closely resembles what governance scholars describe as a prolonged interregnum, in which old certainties have weakened, but new institutional configurations have not yet consolidated (UNDP, 2023). Commentators on governance and the social contract argue that crises of security, social cohesion, and institutional legitimacy intersect, simultaneously creating risks of regression and opportunities for new forms of civic participation (Tubelight Talks, 2025). For civil society organizations, this duality translates into a test of their relevance and public value: entities capable of demonstrating clear social contributions, ethical governance, and adaptive capacity tend to gain trust, while those that rely solely on inherited reputations may be pushed to the margins of increasingly competitive and politicized arenas (Zambrano, da Silva & Dias, 2021).
Research on networks of civil society organizations reinforces this point. In a comparative study of twenty organizations, Zambrano et al. (2021) show that entities embedded in collaborative networks exhibit more robust management and performance profiles, particularly in the dimensions of planning, strategic direction, and member selection. The results suggest that belonging to well-structured networks increases access to resources, information, and capacity for influence, allowing for more coherent responses to complex contexts (Zambrano et al., 2021). In a year like 2026, in which governance pressures and social demands intensify simultaneously, these network structures can function both as buffers—by distributing risks and capabilities—and as amplifiers, by enabling coordinated responses that would be difficult for isolated organizations.
Strategic literature on the non-profit sector offers complementary evidence on the role of planning in these contexts. Based on survey data from non-profit organizations, McNerney (2025) concludes that the existence of a strategic plan is positively associated with greater organizational capacity and better performance, even when controlling for factors such as size and resources. His study interestingly shows that some widely used tools, such as traditional SWOT analysis and certain scorecard models, reveal relatively low effectiveness in turbulent environments, while techniques such as mission-strategy mapping, external trend analysis, and structured stakeholder consultation are evaluated as more impactful (McNerney, 2025). These results are consistent with previous work on strategic management in non-profit organizations, which emphasizes that strategy is more effective when treated as a dynamic process of meaning-making and decision-making, and not as a one-off document (Bryson, 2011; Moore, 2000, cited in McNerney, 2025).
Scenario planning approaches deepen this shift from a static to a dynamic strategy. CIVICUS's work on the futures of civil society and the materials produced by INTRAC present scenario planning not as a forecasting exercise, but as a disciplined way of exploring a limited set of plausible futures and subjecting organizational choices to "stress tests" in each of them (CIVICUS, 2021; INTRAC, 2022; 2024). Ziervogel et al. (2018), reflecting on transformative scenario planning in climate adaptation contexts, argue that participatory scenario processes help actors develop a shared understanding of current challenges and possible trajectories, enabling more legitimate and robust decisions. The work of the ASSAR program and partners such as Reos further demonstrates how scenario planning can serve as a platform for the co-production of responses, as different actors jointly explore options and compromises over time (ASSAR, 2004; Ziervogel et al., 2018).
For civil society organizations and non-profit entities looking to 2026, these contributions converge on a set of practical implications. First, planning in a context of uncertainty means less about predicting a single path and more about preparing for several plausible paths, each with its own risks and opportunities (CIVICUS, 2021; INTRAC, 2024). Second, strategic processes that bring stakeholders—teams, communities, partners, and even critical voices—into a structured dialogue tend to generate not only better information but also greater ownership of decisions and more adaptability when conditions change (Ziervogel et al., 2018; McNerney, 2025). Third, organizations that position themselves within ecosystems and networks, rather than acting in isolation, are better positioned to influence emerging governance debates and access new sources of resources, as suggested by the work of Zambrano et al. (2021) on civil society networks and the Civil Society Organization Sustainability Index (USAID, 2021; Zambrano et al., 2021).
Thus, 2026 can be interpreted not only as a year of exposure to external shocks, but also as a year of choices. Adaptive, participatory, and learning-oriented planning approaches invite leaders to move beyond defensive postures and engage in deliberate experimentation, using uncertainty as a lens to clarify the mission, reprioritize portfolios, and renew partnerships (McNerney, 2025; NeyA Global, 2025). Instead of clinging to static plans or abandoning planning altogether, organizations are encouraged to treat strategy as a living conversation, regularly reviewed in light of new data, feedback, and political signals (Bryson, 2011; INTRAC, 2022). In a world where certainty is no longer a realistic expectation, the ability to plan—critically, collectively, and iteratively—may become one of the few lasting advantages that civil society and nonprofits can cultivate as they enter the uncertainties and opportunities of 2026.
References:
ASSAR. (2004). Using transformative scenario planning to build common understanding. TO ROAST. https://assar.uct.ac.za/themes-participatory-processes/using-transformative-scenario-planning-build-common-understanding
CIVICUS. (2021). CIVICUS scenario planning: Civil society futures. CIVICUS. http://civicus.org/documents/CIVICUS-Scenarios-Final-March2021.pdf
INTRAC. (2022). Strategic thinking and planning in civil society organizations course toolkit. INTRAC. https://ngo-sc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/INTRAC-Strategic-Thinking-and-Planning-in-CSOs-Toolkit.pdf
INTRAC. (2024). Scenario planning. INTRAC. https://www.intrac.org/app/uploads/2024/12/Scenario-planning.pdf
International Monetary Fund. (2025, October). World economic outlook: All issuesIMF. https://www.imf.org/en/publications/weo
McNerney, D. (2025). Strategic planning in nonprofits – Evidence-based answers. Strategy Magazine. https://strategymagazine.org/stratarticles/issue-40/109-strategic-planning-in-nonprofits-evidence-based-answers
NeyA Global. (2025). Strategic planning and execution in non-profit organizations: Adaptive, participatory, and learning-centered approaches. NeyA Global Research Archive. https://neyaglobal.com/journal-nonprofit/strategic-planning-and-execution-in-non-profit-organizations-adaptive-participatory-and-
Tubelight Talks. (2025, November 6). 2026 crisis of governance: Security, social cohesion and the social contractTubelight Talks. https://tubelighttalks.com/2026-crisis-of-governance/
United Nations Development Programme. (2023, March 1). Governance for systemic and transformational changeUNDP. https://hdr.undp.org/content/governance-systemic-and-transformational-change
United States Agency for International Development. (2021). 2021 civil society organization sustainability indexUSAID. https://bcnl.org/uploadfiles/documents/The%202021%20CIVIL%20SOCIETY%20ORGANIZATION%20SUSTAINABILITY%20INDEX.pdf
World Bank. (2025, July 14). Global economic prospectsWorld Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects
Zambrano, A., da Silva, SM, & Dias, T. (2021). Civil society organizations networks: Proposing an analytical model for management and performance profiles. Research, Society and Development, 10(5), e1210512108. https://rsdjournal.org/rsd/article/view/12108
Ziervogel, G., et al. (2018). Transformative scenario planning: Spotlight on transformative scenario planning. TO ROAST. https://weadapt.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/assar_spotlight_on_transformative_scenario_planning_-_march_2018.pdf
