What Evaluation and Internal Audit learned by working together to implement an independent evaluative review of Culture & Engagement/ Gender, Diversity and Inclusion (GDI) in CGIAR
Aligned to the Terms of Reference, for the independent review of 2020-2027 action plans for Gender, Diversity and Inclusion (GDI) and Advancing Culture and Engagement (C&E) in CGIAR, the Evaluation and Internal Audit functions of CGIAR were brought together for a new endeavor to enhance collaboration. We spoke with both Donna Podems, evaluation lead and director of OtherWISE Research and Evaluation in South Africa, and Charles Ndegwa, Internal Audit lead expert in Kenya. Our conversations discussed revelations stemming from this partnership and why this assurance-focused partnership is important.
What were your expectations when you joined this joint project?
Donna: I brought curiosity rather than any specific expectations. I’d never worked with auditors before, and I was interested in how their perspective would strengthen the evaluative exercise. It was less about expectations and more about being genuinely interested in how this collaboration would unfold.
Charles: From the audit side, we joined the team to add another angle to the work. Our focus was on the data being reported: how it is generated, processed, and ultimately reported to management, as well as on governance structures and processes that might not usually be the primary focus of an evaluation. There was a learning curve at first, but overall, the collaboration met its objectives and added value and richness to the evaluative review.
How did the partnering facilitate the work? What did it add?
Donna: Evaluators and auditors approach the assignment differently. As evaluators, we probe deeply into people’s perspectives, following stories, unpacking meaning, and synthesizing perspectives to help answer ‘why’ questions. Auditors bring structured questions and focus on systems and controls. Each lens is appropriate in its own right, and together they complement each other and strengthen the findings.
Charles: The partnership allowed us to look at some of the same evaluation questions through different entry points. Evaluation colleagues brought in lived experiences of CGIAR stakeholders; audit focuses on governance and processes. Joint reflection between interviews helped us make better sense of emerging themes and led to a richer final product.
What was different about the methodology used for this assignment? Is there anything you would change?
Donna: Every evaluation methodology is designed for the specific context; it’s never the same twice. In that sense, I think the approach we used worked very well. If I were to change anything, I would spend a bit more time at the very beginning, talking through the methodology with the auditors and better understanding how each of us understood it and how we would work with it in practice. Developing an internal inception note helped solidify and clarify a clear pathway for effective and efficient delivery.
Charles: From an audit perspective, we were fitting into the evaluation processes as a key collaborator, while also in a supporting role. That meant adapting how we usually work, which was positive. The key learning for us was understanding how evaluators view evidence and synthesis, and how that differs from audit reporting. That understanding grew over the course of the assignment, strengthening the collaboration as it progressed.
What stood out from the interviews?
Donna: The diversity of perspectives. We conducted more interviews than originally planned, as stakeholder views varied widely and were critical for signalling outcomes. It took longer than usual for patterns to emerge. That said, one clear theme cut across the interviews: people strongly value the human dimension of CGIAR's work.
Charles: We were surprised by how unclear adoption pathways were for system-wide frameworks. Approval at CGIAR level didn’t always translate into clear adoption or implementation at center level, which challenged some of our assumptions.
How was the shift from GDI to ‘Culture and Engagement’ perceived?
Donna: Most interviewees didn’t perceive a substantive difference. Outside the group that designed the shift, it was largely experienced as a change in the label, rather than a change in practice.
Charles: From our perspective as well, the distinction was not consistently understood across centers, reinforcing the need for clearer communication.
What distinguishes CGIAR centers with notable achievements in the GDI-related work from those where it struggles?
Donna: Leadership. Centers within CGIAR that have made tangible progress in GDI tend to have leaders who visibly champion the agenda and visibly embed accountability. In these centers, leadership demonstrates commitment through actions, priorities, and resource allocation, making it clear that GDI is integral to organizational performance rather than a symbolic add-on. They set expectations for GDI that are not isolated to HR or individual champions. By contrast, where GDI efforts struggle, leadership signals are weak or inconsistent, accountability is absent, and progress depends on voluntary enthusiasm rather than institutional commitment.
Charles: Centers performed better when GDI and C&E action plans were embedded into center work plans, with clear roles and responsibilities rather than treated as a parallel or voluntary activity, flagged at the systems level.
What does reliance on individual leaders mean for the sustainability of results?
Donna: I think that while investing in leadership is essential, there is also a clear need for trusted and consistent systems. Clear policies and transparent procedures help ensure that employees know what to expect. Over time, this consistency becomes part of organizational culture, reducing fear and strengthening collective responsibility for inclusion and fairness.
Charles: When progress depends on individuals rather than embedded systems, it’s vulnerable to disruption. Sustainability requires clear ownership, integration into roles and plans, and continuity beyond individual leaders.
Looking ahead to 2026–27, what do you see as aspirations for C&E?
Donna: That the current action plan continues to evolve alongside CGIAR and that senior leadership and funders continue, or begin to, invest, even in this challenging funding situation. For CGIAR, this means treating GDI not as something that can be paused during crises. Continued investment, which includes financial and political investment, will signal that GDI is not simply ‘nice-to-have’, but a prerequisite for resilience, innovation, and legitimacy. If GDI is consistently woven into planning, budgeting, and performance expectations, then when funding stabilizes, the system is already aligned and ready to move further and faster.
Charles: Clear accountability, integration into annual work plans, and effective tracking and feedback loops with reporting. Tools like the C&E Index can help make progress visible and sustained.
A shared reflection
Both agree on one thing: combining Evaluation and Internal Audit lenses, and methodological assurance ways produced deeper, more credible insights than either could alone, helping to not only steer CGIAR, but also learn with CGIAR.
This hybrid approach, blending human experience with system-level analysis, offers a strong model for learning, accountability, and long-term impact across CGIAR. In other words, combining Evaluation’s depth of inquiry with Internal Audit’s focus on systems and governance created a richer, more credible understanding, one that not only assessed what is happening, but also why, how, and what it will take to sustain progress.
As CGIAR continues to evolve, this hybrid approach offers a promising model for learning, accountability, and impact.
About the authors
Donna Podems – Evaluative Review Lead, Consultant to IAES/CGIAR
Prof. Donna Podems is an evaluation expert with 23+ years of experience of collaborating with governments, civil society organizations, non-governmental groups, international donors, and foundations in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. She has applied a range of evaluation methods for different interventions in agriculture, early childhood development, education, environment, gender, health systems, HIV/AIDS, human rights, trade and investment, and women’s empowerment. She emphasizes practical evaluation approaches that focus on equity and social justice alongside her feminist evaluation work. For the IAES of CGIAR Dr. Podems co-developed GESY evaluation guidelines (link), served as a Team Lead of the GENDER Platform evaluation (link) and in 2020- as the evaluation team lead of the WHEAT CRP review (link).
She is the founder and owner of OtherWISE Research and Evaluation, a senior research associate at the University of Johannesburg, and a professor at Stellenbosch University. She serves on the editorial board of the American Journal of Evaluation and is a current Bboard member of the International Evaluation Academy.
Charles Ndegwa – Internal Audit Lead Consultant
Charles is an Internal Audit and risk management professional with over 20 years’ experience serving diverse clients in both the private and public sectors. He was the lead Internal Audit consultant on the Culture and Engagement review of CGIAR, lea. He holds a BSc in Computer Science, is a Certified Public Accountant of Kenya (CPA-K) and a Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA). Charles has extensive experience in providing consultancy and training services in internal audit, enterprise risk management, information systems audits and strategic planning. He has provided such services to clients based in East and Southern Africa, Europe and South Pacific.
Learn more on other joint assurance activity related to PRMS: https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/news/assuring-together-lessons-learned-joint-study-cgiars-performance-and-results
