Ethics and Inclusivity Framework

    This is an empirically informed normative framework for cities interested in tech-focused piloting for urban innovation. Use this to assess if the CommuniCity approach suits your city and if your city is able to implement it ethically.

    Key Principles of CommuniCity that this framework refers to:

    Co-creation with marginalised communities

    CommuniCity emphasises inclusive co-creation, particularly with communities that are often underserved, marginalised, or digitally excluded. The idea is not just to consult but to involve these communities as active co-designers in developing solutions → Enable design solutions done with and by them instead of for them.

    Explore some co-creation tools tested in CommuniCity here.

    Local needs in challenge-driven Innovation

    The Open Calls of CommuniCity focus on local challenges defined by cities and communities and solved through collaborative innovation ecosystems involving SMEs, civil society and NGOs, researchers, and local government → Make sure your city is ready and willing to foster this kind of ecosystems.

    Leveraging technology for inclusion

    In CommuniCity, technological innovation is not seen as a goal in itself but as a tool for empowering citizens and reducing inequalities → Reflect whether emphasising the use of certain (emerging) technologies makes sense in the first place.

    Process

    Phase 1

    Setting up

    (Strategic Groundwork, Pre-engagement)

    Phase 2

    Before the Pilot

    (Planning, Preparation)

    Phase 3

    During the Pilot

    (Execution, Evaluation)

    Phase 4

    After the Pilot

    (Adjustment, Possible Scaling)

    Phase 5 

    Post-Pilot Follow-Through

    (Post Pilot learning, Governance, Evolution)

    Preparation Guide

    Familiarisation with the CommuniCity approach; calibrating the mindset

    Cities need to assess if the approach suits them in the first place: can they subscribe to it?

    Sharing the ethos and the key principles
    Cities that wish to pursue the approach, must clarify their motives in advance. Interest in leveraging cutting-edge technology for urban innovation is not a wide enough as an orientation. You are also expected to care for and engage with the vulnerable and/or marginalised groups of your urban communities. You need to be ready to explore their realities and reach out to them. You must get the problem definition right and only then proceed towards finding the pilot teams. Thus, ask yourself:
    Can your City adhere to the key principles of CommuniCity?

    Orchestrating open calls and piloting
    Adopting the CommuniCity approach is a major commitment for any City. For cities that have little previous experience of piloting, it may be difficult to anticipate what it can mean in practice. Having decided to follow the approach, your City carries the main accountability for the series of interventions that result from the open calls. You may get some fame from successful solutions, but you need to be prepared to carry the entire blame if something goes wrong. Thus, ask:
    Can your City carry the accountability for the chosen approach as a whole? 

    Resourcing required
    Depending on the funding you have available for your City to manage the open calls and to support  the pilot teams, both time and money may prove to be limited resources. Dealing with possible problematic situations can also feel burdening. The City needs to learn a lot on the go, but it also needs to support and teach others who are new to the approach or may fail to follow key principles for other reasons. Ask:
    Does your City have the available resources and skills to live up to the high expectations?

     

    Checklist for cities

    ❓ Have we defined the strategic purpose of piloting in our city?

    ❓ Have we mapped our city’s participation goals and policy priorities?

    🗺️ Have we identified marginalised communities, intermediaries, and local civic actors?

    👥 Is the pilot team diverse and reflective of the community it serves?

    🧱 Have we ensured ethics is embedded as infrastructure, not as an add-on?

    🪙 Are funding mechanisms flexible enough to support bottom-up engagement?

    📊 Are benchmarking insights and existing policy frameworks informing this phase?

    Preparation Guide

    Ethics by design: Being considerate and thorough 

    Cities need to consider how they can embed the approach in the local context, to get properly rooted.

    Catering for access and inclusion
    The success of CommuniCity pilots hinges not only on the strength of the technological solutions but also on who gets to participate in shaping and implementing them. Cities must pay careful attention to the way their open calls are framed and communicated. The tone, language, and choice of dissemination channels will all affect who feels welcome to apply. Civil society organisations and NGOs can play a vital role here, not only as intermediaries between the City and marginalised groups, but also in helping applicants articulate their ideas. Yet, language skills and digital literacy can become barriers, especially in international or multilingual settings. Submission platforms and reporting portals may feel inaccessible to those with limited training or experience. Thus, Cities must ask:
    Can we make our process accessible enough so that people with lived experience of vulnerability — not just professional developers — feel encouraged to engage?

    Spending time with the challenge formation
    One of the most significant phases in the CommuniCity journey is the careful shaping of the challenges to be addressed. If the City defines the challenges solely through the lens of its sector-based services, it risks being disconnected from lived realities. Pilots that emerge from poorly grounded problem definitions are unlikely to generate meaningful impact. Ideally, the challenge should emerge through close engagement with the affected communities — spending time with them, understanding how they see the issue, and co-defining the terms. This process may take time, involve some back and forth, and feel slower than anticipated. But without it, even the best solutions may fall flat. Ask:
    Can your City commit to this kind of groundwork, even if the ecosystem for such engagement does not yet exist?

     

    Checklist for cities

    🔍 Have we defined what inclusive success looks like for this pilot?

    🤝 Are co-creation activities designed to move beyond tokenism?

    🔐 Have we assessed ethical risks (e.g., harm, exclusion, bias)?

    📋 Are informed consent, transparency, and communication plans in place?

    🎯 Are the depth and modes of participation tailored to different community needs?

    🧩 Have roles and responsibilities between city staff, tech providers, and community reps been clearly set?

    🛠️ Are there protocols for adapting if the pilot goals shift?

    Preparation Guide

    Ethics implemented: Being helpful, patient and critically constructive

    Cities need to consider how actors with differing levels of experience can act and raise difficult questions

    Giving and taking in the pilot phase
    Piloting is not just about testing solutions — it is a profoundly relational process. For many community groups and less experienced applicants, the availability and responsiveness of the City team (Pilot Manager and Pilot Hosts) can make or break their journey. The City team must be ready to give: to offer guidance, make themselves available for dialogue, and help connect pilot teams with the communities they aim to serve. But the City must also be prepared to take: to uphold high expectations around ethical integrity, inclusion, and accountability. Pilots must be asked to reflect critically on their legitimacy to intervene, their respect for diverse lived experiences, and the clarity of their consent and privacy protocols. Ask:
    Is your city embracing the dual role of a generous facilitator and a firm guardian of the CommuniCity approach?

    Embracing reflection and navigating power
    As pilots progress, they must be accompanied by a strong culture of reflection. Pilot managers, hosts, and city actors need to pay attention not only to the technical progress but to the human and relational dimensions of the work. Awareness of local power structures, hierarchies, and historical dynamics is essential — especially when working with marginalised communities. Equality impacts cannot be assessed by ticking boxes; they must be understood in context. Cities should exclude approaches that demonstrate inadequate understanding or questionable practices. At the same time, they should recognise and reward those who show openness, care, and transparency.
    Can your City create an environment where this kind of critical, ethical reflection is actively encouraged?

     

    Checklist for cities

    🗣️ Are there active feedback loops with community participants?

    ⚖️ Are power dynamics being acknowledged and addressed in real-time?

    🧭 Are pilot facilitators trained to practice ethical reflexivity on the go?

    📊 Are data collection practices GDPR-compliant and privacy-conscious?

    💬 Are open conversations encouraged when tensions or concerns arise?

    👥 Are underrepresented groups actively shaping outcomes, not just observing?

    🔄 Is iteration allowed, and are ethical adjustments being made mid-way?

    Preparation Guide

    Ethics evaluated, lessons learnt: Being fair and accountable

    Cities need to consider how recognition is shared if outcomes are mixed or impacts uneven – and improve

    Sharing the fame and taking the blame
    As the work unfolds and outcomes begin to emerge, Cities must remain mindful of how recognition and accountability are distributed. When pilots succeed, it is essential to acknowledge all contributors — including community members, grassroots organisations, and support staff — not just the solution developers. When things go wrong, the City must be ready to take responsibility. Moreover, even so-called “successful” solutions can feel extractive if local value creation was minimal or if communities felt sidelined in the process. Recognising the effort, cherishing the empowerment of those involved, and maintaining humility even in moments of achievement — these are the hallmarks of a City that aligns with the ethos of CommuniCity. Ask yourself:
    Can your City ensure that credit is shared fairly and that accountability is never displaced?

    Improving one’s own conduct and helping others
    Is CommuniCity “legacy” also about helping possible future cohorts?

     

    Checklist for cities

    🧮 What were the mutual benefits for the city and participants?

    🧾 Are ethical and legal compliance checks completed and documented?

    📈 Did we evaluate the depth and quality of participation?

    🧩 Are outputs being translated into policy, services, or future planning?

    🔄 Has the team compiled a reflections report or ethical summary?

    🗃️ Are outcomes stored with appropriate data retention or deletion protocols?

    Checklist for cities

    🧠 What did we institutionalise from this pilot? (e.g., advisory boards, review cycles)

    📚 Have learnings been documented and shared with other city units?

    🌐 Are community representatives included in future governance structures?

    🔁 Are lessons feeding forward into upcoming pilot rounds or programs?

    📊 Have we assessed and addressed historical/systemic imbalances revealed during piloting?

    🛠️ Can we establish ongoing monitoring or ethical foresight systems?

    📣 Are we sharing what worked—and what didn’t—with other cities or networks?

    Advice for the design of research and innovation funding schemes that may contain piloting:

    When wishing to involve ‘unusual suspects’ in innovation piloting, you need to devote considerable amount of time to the preparatory phase. Please note that many pressing urban issues require other than technology-based solutions. Based on CommuniCity, an alternative route for non-tech solutions should parallel the tech-focused piloting process.

     

    Fund grounded, inclusive, and context-aware schemes require prioritising of initiatives that demonstrate meaningful engagement with affected communities, thoughtful challenge definition, and clear strategies to ensure access and inclusion from the outset.

     

    Fund pilots as ethical learning processes, not just solution tests. Require prioritising of  proposals that commit to relational work, critical reflection, and ethical responsibility, especially in engagements with marginalised communities.

     

    Fund approaches that centre shared credit and accountable practice. Support initiatives that plan for fair recognition, local value creation, and transparent responsibility.