Engagement of Non-State Actors’ Capacities in the Crisis Management System

Abstract

Background: This paper addresses the need to clarify and highlight the vital roles non-state actors play in strengthening the disaster management ecosystem, drawing on knowledge and experience across sectors and entities. The objective is to underscore the irreplaceable roles of non-state actors in disaster response and the need for shared capacities through the coordination, adoption, and application of agreed-upon protocols across actors and contexts. The research’s ultimate goal is to provide policymakers, crisis managers, non-state actors, and volunteer coordinators with a comprehensive overview of the functional areas, competencies, and capacities of civic organisations across all phases of disaster management. Integrating these organisations into existing governmental crisis management systems offers an opportunity to enhance community resources and capacities through unified communication and interoperability protocols based on existing technical and ethical standards. Methods: The research reviews academic literature, legal and policy frameworks, and grey literature, including recommendations and experiences documented in a repository of 140 CORDIS EU-funded initiatives that illustrate expert and institutional opinions on disaster management. The manuscript also relies on secondary data analyses presenting the opinions collected from 50 participants in an interactive group exercise on the role of non-state actors and volunteers. It further draws on aggregated knowledge from nine consultative workshops involving 20 civic and governmental organisations, synthesising practices, formal standards, robust coordination frameworks, and command-and-control system rules into an innovative voluntary disaster response protocol for non-state actors and volunteers. The findings demonstrate the value of non-state actors in disaster management and how gaps in their engagement can create opportunities to strengthen the disaster management ecosystem by enhancing the cohesion of capacities and resources. Compared with international standards (INSARAG, etc.), a protocol incorporating technical and integrity norms in an accessible, adaptable format emphasises the importance of integrating non-state actors into the formal disaster crisis management system. Conclusions: Establishing a set of standards for coordinated awareness and response, facilitated by continuous communication of roles and competencies among disaster responders at both local and international levels, is essential for the sustainable mitigation of negative impacts before, during, and after emergencies or catastrophic events.

1. Introduction

1.1. Foreground and Research Concepts

The increasing frequency and intensity of disasters worldwide underscore the need for cohesive, coordinated efforts to integrate the capacities of non-state actors (“NSA”) with those of international organisations and governmental bodies. The involvement of the NSA in disaster management poses significant challenges in developing effective systems to govern external capacities alongside established crisis management practices. Effective governance of both ad hoc and predefined networks, including organised private professionals and spontaneous volunteers, is essential to maintain service quality throughout all phases of disaster management: preparedness, prevention, response, and recovery.

For the purpose of this paper, (1) the “disaster management ecosystem” is defined as the integration of human resources—including competencies, roles, skills, abilities, professional qualifications, and overall personal capacities—coordinated through protocols for communication and tasking. The term encompasses a repository of all phases of preparedness, prevention, response, recovery, and improvement, informed by lessons learned from emergencies, crises, and humanitarian disasters, particularly those involving mass casualties.

While “disaster responder” or “disaster practitioners” will refer to all private and government actors of the disaster management, the “non-state actors–NSA or non-governmental organisations-NGO” refer to entities and individuals operating through ad hoc, pre-agreed, or partnership-driven protocols in the disaster management ecosystem. Also, the NSA recruits individual volunteers, who are usually assigned roles in the organisation and management. These actors are considered to rely on intrinsic responsibility and competence, and on communication and coordination grounded in standard operating procedures, technical, ethical, or other procedural or integrity norms, and rules, collectively defined as (2) “protocolisation”. The terminology refers to the implementation of voluntary common protocols that lay the foundations for formal yet adaptable approaches to NSAs within the disaster management system alongside governmental bodies. The research concept of “protocolisation” extends beyond rigid procedural mandates, fostering a collaborative ecosystem in which diverse NSAs operate through shared principles whilst maintaining organisational autonomy and flexibility.

The value added by this research concept lies in four foundational principles: protocols must be available to all responding entities, accessible through multiple channels and formats, acceptable across diverse organisational cultures and operational contexts, and adaptable to evolving disaster scenarios and community-specific vulnerabilities.

1.2. Stakeholders and Collective Coping Capacities

A comprehensive understanding of the global context shows that multi-actor, inter-sectoral approaches are advancing innovative, standardised frameworks for networking and capacity building. Harmonising capacities requires identifying key stakeholders, including, but not limited to, government and its parastatals, NGOs, donors, the private sector, the media, academia, regional cooperation, community/citizens, and the immediate environment, and emphasising their role in “mitigating disaster prevalence to ensure effective disaster management” [1].

Stakeholders in disaster management include government agencies, private organisations, the media, non-state actors, emergency insurance services, and the public [2]. Key international actors include the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which manages disaster response efforts globally in cooperation with the European Union Civil Protection Mechanism (EUCPM), the European Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO), the EU Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC), and the EU European Medical Corps, which provide reserve capacities under multilateral agreements. Other significant entities include the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the ASEAN Center of Military Medicine (ACMM), the ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre), AusAID, the UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) office, WHO, USAID, the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), and the Latin American and Caribbean Economic System [3].

In this context, the “Community of Users” on safe, secure and resilient societies is introduced by the European Union in 2014 and refers to a collective of first- and second-line workers, academia, companies, and citizens engaged in the safety, security, and resilience of the European Communities. Accordingly, the “community of users” comprises professionals from various disciplines in disaster prevention and management: physical scientists, such as earth scientists and meteorologists; social scientists, such as sociologists and economists; engineers; architects; healthcare workers; and humanitarian aid workers. It also includes international aid agencies, government bodies, NSAs, and private-sector representatives. The Community of Users is facilitated through relevant EU-funded projects and regular meetings of the CERIS group, which help identify synergies between private actors in the disaster management ecosystem and in the human security domain.

Similarly, FEMA promotes the “whole community engagement” concept [4], which recognises that a government-centric approach to emergency management in the face of increasingly frequent catastrophes requires reliance on the public and private sectors, government agencies, civil organisations, business entities, social makers, and academia.

Furthermore, the critical resolution from the Third UN Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai (March 2015, Japan) highlights that “the realisation of the new framework depends on our unceasing and tireless collective efforts to make the world safer from the risk of disasters in the decades to come for the benefit of the present and future generations [5].”

The concept of collective disaster response capacities is also grounded in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030), which aligns with international agreements and is guided by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). The UNDRR emphasises preventive measures through the global mainstreaming of risk mitigation [6], while the European Union enhances its collective response capabilities through mechanisms such as UCPM and rescEU, representing “the emergence of European Union capacity” [7] to manage transboundary crises effectively.

The lack of equal response capacities and resources necessitates reliance on “outside help”, and non-state actors must be properly addressed in response efforts [8]. Stakeholders may vary by emergency type [9]; supporting the mobilisation of existing structures in the early response phase and coordination mechanisms at the onset of an outbreak. More likely, spontaneous and organised non-state actors can rapidly spur the emergence of new structures during an emergency, disaster, humanitarian crisis, or an event with mass casualties.

1.2.1. The Functional Areas

Non-state actors traditionally play a critical role in providing humanitarian, social, and psychosocial support services during and after disasters/crises, thereby facilitating community and societal recovery.

The increasing reliance on NGOs is widely acknowledged for their demonstrated motivation, adaptability, and creativity [10]. Societal intervention in humanitarian crises is characterised in the literature as either neutral or political [11], and more often as (a) filling gaps when other actors withhold support [12], especially playing a significant role in refugee crises [13], or functioning as implementing partners, advocates, and critics [14]. A detailed classification by Towe VL, Acosta JD, and Chandra A. (2017) [15] highlights the NGOs’ adaptive services during disasters (e.g., warehousing, food services). The authors concluded that 100 of the 120 organisations studied were “eight times more likely to report routinely participating in disaster planning”.

Over the past 50 years, international, regional, national, and local policies and strategies have shifted towards comprehensive disaster management frameworks that emphasise “vertical and horizontal collaboration within a designated organisation or with external partners” [16]. The community-based engagement is one of the participatory and inclusive approaches to mitigate local threats and ensure the inclusion of affected groups in response initiatives [17].

Norris et al. [18] offer an interesting approach to civic engagement, exploring behavioural and psychological aspects of community resilience, defined as “sets of adaptive capacities”, including “Economic Development, Social Capital, Information and Communication, and Community Competence”. The “culture of resiliency” [19] also highlights the need to empower people to participate in response and recovery procedures. Building on the concept of resilience, Madrigano et al. [20] introduce the term “resilience-oriented workforce”, referring to tasking within organisational processes, education, capacities, and models for leadership in crises or disasters. Further, “support roles and routine services” are also attributed to faith-based entities and businesses in the study by Chandra et al. (2013) [21]. The handbook by Khorram defines adequate capacities as relying on knowledge, competencies, and abilities, while Boin et al. clarify that the professionalisation of responders’ capacity refers to the phase of preparedness, planning, practical experience, training, and education [22].

1.2.2. Coherence via Networking

The literature typically characterises crisis management operations as multi-agency, interdisciplinary decision-making processes occurring at operational, tactical, and strategic levels [23,24,25,26]. These operations are further described as comprising nested decision-making cycles that form both front-line and remote response networks [21]. Additionally, scholars emphasise the active involvement of various non-governmental entities and highlight the need for greater understanding of how information is translated and transformed as it moves between the front line and the remote response network at tactical and strategic levels [27]. The concept of shared capacities of “local communities, the private sector, and NGOs” refers to “managing public affairs beyond the traditional roles of governments” [28,29]. A review of Lassa J.A [28] discusses the roles of NGOs at different levels and arenas, ranging from local to international, which have changed over the last 70 years, especially since World War II. The author proposes five phases for NGOs’ interaction within the disaster management framework (approach, focus, time frame, role, scope, and participants) and stresses current partnerships as “ecosystems and complex actions” that necessitate innovation, effective delivery, technological support, and educational initiatives.

Regardless of the size of the affected community, the scale of the emergency, or its geographical implications, disasters are “time-sensitive, potentially harmful events that put life and well-being at risk” [30]. The governance of ad hoc and predefined networks, whether organised by NGO professionals or composed of spontaneous volunteers, is essential to ensuring the quality of services across all phases of disaster management—preparedness, prevention, response, and recovery. In addition, Treurniet discusses “emergency response networks” mobilising community resources to reflect the “complex nature of large-scale incidents” [31].

However, ad hoc partnerships formed in the wake of a disaster can vary in scope, size, and structure as members join, leave, and alter their roles. The instrumental support of non-state actors is acknowledged, as even the most localised operation “may exceed the expertise, resources, jurisdiction, and scope of any single agency”, further necessitating collaborative efforts among two or more entities [32]. The non-state actors’ roles may “exist primarily in plans and procedures”; however, they may lack institutional support and “practice routines” for more frequently faced situations. The incident response network must maintain the integrity of its operations while continuously adapting to previously peripheral or uninvolved stakeholders, moving them into more central roles [29]. Key actors may exit the network, new participants may join, and different emergency response roles may increase or decrease in significance. Understanding the coherence of actors and their protocolised interoperability and coordination in disaster response helps emergency managers and policymakers make better-informed decisions. Greater knowledge of non-state actors leads to more effective engagement and a higher-quality evaluation of the efficiency of inter-organisational response networks [29].

1.2.3. Engagement via “Protocolisation”

The involvement of non-state actors and their capacities within functional domains creates demands for “protocolised” interoperability across processes and personnel. Minimal standards and evaluation metrics can be established through consensus, education and training, and the development of procedures and protocols for key issues such as communication, information, and planning [20,33]. Although government resources are often insufficient, an operational model specifying NGO roles and responsibilities before, during, and after a disaster is lacking [34]. Dobson R. and Mannesh K.A. [16] note that communication between authorities and the public is essential for understanding risk, disseminating warnings and alerts during emergencies, facilitating collaborative prevention efforts, and encouraging politicians and decision-makers to adopt precautionary measures.

Aspects of crisis management also encompass the communication typologies used to engage non-state actors as frontline support teams in disaster response [35]. In emergency management, non-institutionalised teams across various services rely on precise guidance through well-distributed information, or, in other words, on adequate communication approaches during evolving events. However, two important and distinct types of communication in the emergency management context are essential [36]: information transmitted to guide emergency responses and to alert the at-risk population. Interoperability and cooperation among ad hoc disaster responders can be established and tested in the preparedness phase to coordinate communication effectively in the response phase, thereby achieving timely actions, situational awareness, and crisis leadership [36].

The effective disaster management hinges on robust communication systems and distributed decision-making processes between a range of actors is a key challenge in crisis management, addressed as “operational pictures” [27] that convey factual information and codify dynamic crisis management processes. Also, attention is drawn to inter-organisational communication in the preparedness phase, including drills and exercises based on scenarios [7], in line with standards that allow organisations “to learn as well as improve processes and communication structures before disasters strike”. As stated in the 2024 Risk-Informed Early Action Partnership report, non-state actors shall be properly addressed in response efforts [8].

This study regards “operational pictures” as analogous of before-defined “protocolisation.” The term is introduced to synthesise operational procedures with roles, areas of impact, and communication models, aligned with coordinated activities across all four phases of disaster management.

Although the research takes a generally positive approach to the engagement of non-state actors, it also presents factual statements based on case studies, indicating that disaster management systems are unprepared to open their command-and-control structures to informal volunteers [37]. For example, while Sweden and Norway score highly for active and traditional volunteerism in disaster response, spontaneous volunteer engagement is not encouraged in Belgium and Italy. Finally, in Germany, Hungary, Finland, and Estonia, the authors conclude that although volunteers are not formally accepted, they are acknowledged in ad hoc interventions.

To summarise, the growing need for competence distribution and functional interaction among NSAs is driven by three main factors: a rising number of events, casualties, and damages; diversification of competencies and capacities; and advances in technology that facilitate joint response efforts. NSAs are instrumental to communities during disasters and routine operations; however, their effectiveness is diminished without an operational framework for integrated response and recovery efforts. The reference Lassa (2018) is often associated with research regarding the role of NGOs in disaster risk reduction and the shifting landscape of governance in Southeast Asia [28].

2. Materials and Methods

Aligned with the primary objective of identifying the recognised roles of non-state actors and formalising their engagement within official disaster response systems, this study addresses three principal research questions:

(1)

How has the perception of NSA engagement in disaster responses evolved over time?

(2)

What value do NSA add, and in what ways do they contribute to effective disaster management outcomes?

(3)

What are the components of the protocolised engagement of non-state actors within the disaster management ecosystem?

These three questions form the foundation of a triangular research approach: a systematic literature review, a project database analysis, and practical validation of experience within a tripartite research material corpus. The approach ensures that findings are both academically rigorous and practically relevant, and that the positioning of NSAs and societal and political perceptions of their presence and recognition within the disaster management ecosystem are determined. The investigation traces historical shifts in perspectives on non-state actor contributions, explores the integration of lessons learned into standardised protocols, and analyses notable disaster response cases that illustrate active NSA involvement. Sources include scientific literature reviews, public database analyses (Google Scholar, SCOPUS, PubMed, ISO System, NGO Deep, Reliefweb, CORDIS), and fieldwork comprising expert consultations and interactive group exercises [38].

2.1. Key Methods

The research method comprises synthesising evidence to understand the non-state actors ‘engagement by employing:

(a)

PRISMA approaches ensuring documentation and justification of statements

(b)

The Boolean method provides classification and comprehensiveness across multiple sources, capturing diverse evidence types

(c)

Validation through practical experience, confirming the theoretical propositions

The triangulated combination of PRISMA protocols, Boolean search strategies, and empirical validation establishes a robust methodological framework that balances systematic comprehensiveness with practical applicability. The relevance of generating findings ensures that research outcomes are based on a comprehensive inventory of examples of NSA involvement, supported by robust evidence and validated through practical experience. While the systematic literature review is guided by the PRISMA method for identifying evidence, the Boolean search strategy enables precise, reproducible search protocols across multiple databases, project documentation, and the analysis of evaluations of international initiatives.

The tripartite research design integrates historical literature, normative frameworks, and contemporary field data to ensure comprehensive coverage of the complex dimensions of disaster management. The combination of desk-based analysis and applied fieldwork advances objectives related to the positioning, recognition, and effectiveness of non-state actors within the disaster management ecosystem. Ongoing data synthesis enables comparative analysis between documented perspectives and practitioners’ experiences.

2.1.1. A PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)

The PRISMA reporting structure was used to incorporate multi-source verification of recorded interventions spanning over 20 years in the CORDIS-EU database. Initial screening removed records that were clearly irrelevant, based on defined semantic units (“keywords”) guiding the selection process. The definition is based on the research team’s professional competences and ongoing activities in the field of disaster education and management. During the screening phase, titles and abstracts were evaluated against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies were selected if they addressed non-state actors in disaster management contexts, were available in English, and met minimum quality thresholds. In general, materials concerning technologies, social media, early warning tools, GIS and satellite mapping, and related topics were omitted or not collected. Subsequently, the full texts of the relevant articles were reviewed, and the information was synthesised in relation to the research questions.

2.1.2. Boolean Strategy

Refined Boolean search strings were deployed across the CORDIS-EU database and supplementary sources to select and analyse “recorded interventions” from the repository. First, 600 “recorded interventions” were identified using content- and title-sensitive “keywords” aligned with authoritative disaster management terminology. The preliminary selection was narrowed to 391 and 140 “recorded interventions”, respectively, based on Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) combined with semantic phrases to maximise retrieval precision while maintaining comprehensive coverage (Figure 1).

Boolean operators enabled the creation of precise search strings that expand or narrow retrieval parameters. The AND operator narrows searches by requiring all keywords to be present; OR broadens searches by including any additional keyword; and NOT excludes specific terms from results, for example, “technology”. The analyses employed Boolean research logic to identify documented project outputs, deliverables, reports, publications and recommendations within the CORDIS-EU databases.

Core Boolean operators are used to narrow results, for example: “disaster management” AND “non-state actors”. Similarly, the OR operator broadens results by including any term, such as NGO/NSA OR “civil society” OR “community organisation”. The NOT operator excludes specific terms, for instance, “disaster communication” NOT “technology for communication in emergency”.

2.1.3. Empirical Verification

Theoretical findings from the literature were also validated against real-world implementation experiences, ensuring that research conclusions reflect the operational realities practitioners face in disaster contexts. To this end, the research used secondary data analysis, drawing on practitioners’ insights from direct engagement with disaster management professionals, NSA coordinators, and community leaders, providing contextual depth and identifying implementation challenges not evident in the published literature.

The research team was directly involved in implementing activities for two project-driven initiatives. The selection of participants was open to any network partner or entity proposed by government actors, or identified through capacity assessments and NSAs in the respective region or district where the event was held. A balance between women and men was considered, with cca 50% female and 50% male. Children under 18 were excluded, but participants aged 60+ were included.

The inclusion of practical experience served multiple methodological purposes. Firstly, it provides critical validation for theoretical propositions derived from the literature and aligns with operational realities. Secondly, it identifies emerging practices and innovations not covered in the literature. Thirdly, it captures tacit knowledge held by experienced practitioners—insights into coordination mechanisms and adaptive strategies that are rarely formally documented but prove essential for effective NSA engagement.

2.2. Materials and Research Phases

The tripartite approach, comprising a systematic literature review, project documentation analysis, and practical experience validation, ensured that findings are robust, comprehensive, and applicable to disaster management practice.

2.2.1. Literature-Based Identification

The research systematically examined the academic literature (and academic repositories (Scopus, Web of Science, ResearchGate, PubMed), policy documents, technical reports, working papers, government documents, international agreements, and ISO standards, offering up-to-date, often unbiased, specialised data from organisations such as governments, think tanks, and businesses. This component provided theoretical grounding and captured scholarly perspectives on the evolving roles of NSAs, private-sector entities, and individual volunteers in disaster contexts. The literature was also used to identify metadata on empirical cases that provide detailed examinations of specific instances in which non-state actors have engaged in disaster management activities, capturing lessons learned, success factors, and contextual variables that affect outcomes [40].

The literature selection provided a systematic review of the scientific literature from the 1940s to the present, encompassing publications, reputable websites, and official policy documents. This historical depth provided justification for various perspectives on disaster management paradigms and for recognising NSAs’ involvement.

In addition, the legal and standard documentation provided the framework for analysing a repository of international standards, handbooks, and guidance documents relevant to disaster management.

2.2.2. Projects’ Analysis

The database of the Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS), an open data register, aggregates knowledge from various transnational actors involved in research, experiments, and educational and awareness initiatives that support various aspects of the disaster management ecosystem. The research focused on analysing “recorded interventions” from CORDIS-EU for their rich information and extensive temporal coverage spanning over 20 years. Comprehensive data harvesting involved assembling an initial corpus of data and their contextual and semantic interpretations, further supported by manual study, selection, and coding, as well as a PRISMA approach and a Boolean method.

Particular emphasis was placed on a selected repository of preselected 406 “intervention records” including briefs N = 31, events post = 8, project deliverables = 47, publications = 46, magazines = 2, exploitable results = 2, news = 22, programme documents = 10, project content = 107, story N = 3, pubsum N = 116, resultpack N = 1, and not relevant records N = 11. Each “recorded intervention” was catalogued in a structured Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel, version 365, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA), preserving essential metadata, including project identifiers, thematic classifications, and content descriptions. This tabular organisation facilitated subsequent sorting, filtering, and cross-referencing, which are essential for thematic clustering analyses. The content was organised in tabular format, preserving relationships between projects, thematic categories, and intervention types for subsequent analytical operations.

The coding process involved assigning descriptive labels, or “thematic criteria”, to cluster the content, with refinement based on manual selection. The “thematic criteria” were derived from the taxonomies and terminology of international and European disaster management agencies, namely OCHA, UNDRR, and EUCPM (justification of taxonomies in part “Introduction”). Further refinement led to the scrutiny of 377 records against 17 criteria. In narrowing the number of analysed “recorded interventions”, technology-centric content from two (2) thematic criteria (critical infrastructure and technologies) was excluded (N = “100”) to focus the analysis on policy, organisational, and procedural dimensions, stakeholder coordination, and NSA engagement. Afterwards, the remaining records were manually filtered to 140 relevant projects, excluding events, posts, and various deliverables and reports aligned with the same initiatives.

The manual analysis was augmented with computational methods, including content analysis (quantifying the appearance of “keyword = thematic criteria” to identify dominant trends) and automated clustering that grouped projects by semantic textual similarity. Each project and/or “recorded intervention” was assigned to its most appropriate “thematic criteria”, whilst acknowledging cross-cutting initiatives that may legitimately span multiple thematic domains. This phase ensured analytical clarity and supported transparent reporting of classification decisions and clustering, thereby fostering the three main pillars of NSA engagement in the disaster management ecosystem.

2.2.3. Practical Experience

The research included direct interactions with disaster management experts, volunteer responders, and representatives of government organisations, through an interactive group exercise and nine expert consultative workshops. The predefined topics align with the NSA’s role, its functional areas in disaster management, and standardised communication protocols for direct engagement within the disaster management ecosystem. The predefined topics align with the main research questions, and records are kept in the form of minutes, reports, photo documentation, presence lists, and recommendation papers [41].

Insights from disaster practitioners were gathered through interactions with disaster management professionals, NSA and volunteer coordinators, and community leaders, providing contextual depth and highlighting implementation challenges not evident in the published literature. This approach provided a critical validation mechanism for theoretical propositions. Additionally, it captured tacit knowledge held by experienced practitioners and information shaping the parameters of competence distribution and the operational, protocolised approaches of the NSAs. The research relied on insights from non-state and governmental actors engaged in two two-year projects:

The Samaritans International-led ERASMUS project SEE “Social Cohesion by Empowering Volunteering during Emergencies” (No. 101147724), which enabled the analysis of the opinions of 50 representatives of NSAs and governmental agencies (30 April 2025, Stara Lubovna, Slovakia). The facilitated discussion method followed the open space exercise model, enabling free discussion and anonymous feedback while encouraging participants to contribute to identifying the main areas of NSA engagement. The open space format required dynamic regrouping of participants three times to avoid subjective opinions or restrictions on the expression of personal views.

The Society Development Institute project initiative V4 “Capacity building for non-governmental first responders and humanitarian workers” (No. 22320002), which enabled numerous consultations and working group meetings among non-state and public actors from Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Ukraine, who established minimum qualifications for the roles, competencies and interoperability protocols for the engagement of non-state responders.

The findings of nine consultative meetings are based on data recorded in invitations, agendas of topics from five international partners in Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Ukraine, facilitation of discussion, minutes and reports, and accompanying materials, later published upon proof of participation by the participating entities. Participants were selected based on their organisational/individual commitment to disaster management, and a diverse group was ensured, comprising 50% local actors and 50% international actors. The total number of participants is 138, where “E” stands for events and “N” for the number of participants (E1 = N11, E2 = N12, E3 = N5, E4 = N14, E5 = 32, E6 = 10, E7 = 34, E8 = cooperation of all 18, E9 = 21).

Furthermore, the synthesised model of a voluntary protocol was officially presented at the forum of Community for European Research and Innovation for Security (CERIS) and Disaster Resilience Societies (DRS), From Local to International Cooperation, 5–7th June 2024 in Brussels.

To a greater extent, the combination of literature review, dataset analyses, and outputs from experimental fieldwork with representatives of the NSA complemented the research objectives by positioning them and securing their societal and political acknowledgement within the disaster management ecosystem.

2.3. Additional Methodological Challenges

2.3.1. AI Support Tool Analyser

Computational text analysis was conducted using Python (Python Software Foundation, version 3.x, https://www.python.org) with open-source libraries for data preprocessing and semantic clustering. The analytical workflow included structured text cleaning, keyword frequency analysis, and semantic similarity-based clustering to identify latent thematic patterns not immediately apparent through manual review.

The content of 140 “recorded interventions” from the CORDIS-EU database was consolidated into a single structured dataset suitable for computational processing. Vectorisation and similarity-based clustering techniques were applied to support the identification of recurring thematic structures.

The AI-supported sentiment analysis of information collected during the interactive group exercises was performed using predefined thematic coding criteria developed by practitioners and governmental and private disaster management experts participating in the workshops. Automated outputs were systematically reviewed and manually validated by the research team.

Additionally, the Gamma.ai analytical platform (https://gamma.app) was used as a supplementary exploratory tool to generate structured summaries and preliminary thematic overviews. The AI-assisted stage functioned solely as an auxiliary analytical layer.

No critical methodological decisions, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or final classifications were determined solely by AI-based outputs. All interpretative judgments were finalised by the research team to ensure methodological transparency and reproducibility.

2.3.2. Research Limitations

Whilst geographical constraints might initially appear to limit the scope of this research, these limitations are comprehensively mitigated through a robust methodological approach and the extensive expertise of the research team. The study draws upon a wealth of direct, practical experience combined with rigorous academic inquiry to ensure both depth and breadth of insight. The research team comprises professionals with more than 15 years of hands-on experience in tactical and strategic disaster management interventions. Their expertise spans governmental agencies, volunteer organisations, and NSAs operating within the disaster management ecosystem across Europe.

Any potential geographical limitations are systematically addressed through a comprehensive review of the academic literature and by defining relevant use cases from diverse geographical regions worldwide. This ensures the research maintains global relevance and applicability beyond European contexts.

Crucially, the research team actively participates in an international network aligned with Sphere humanitarian standards, connecting with NSAs operating across different continents. This intrinsic knowledge, gained through continuous engagement with global practitioners, is conceptualised and integrated throughout the research framework, ensuring that findings reflect contemporary best practices in international disaster management.

3. Results

The following chapter summarises multifaceted findings grouped into the following results: the positioning of non-state actors within the disaster management ecosystem, the definition of functional areas, roles, and competences, and the standardised protocols for inclusion in the crisis management system.

Key findings are presented in results 1 to 6, demonstrating how the development of the operational model describing NSA involvement in disaster response emerges from a comprehensive literature that illustrates concrete cases, examines the complex areas of impact of the NSA, and considers the selection of existing frameworks, standards, and international coordination frameworks that are adaptable to the evolving needs of societies and to the capacities of non-state actors in disaster management. The findings are structured around interrelated domains, each contributing essential insights to the proposed protocolisation framework.

The policy landscape and partnership dynamics demonstrate that the ability to communicate supports interoperability within partnerships among NSAs and between NSAs and government entities. Secondly, the capabilities and capacity determinants are clearly defined as a result of the analysis of historical data from academic literature: The comprehensive review of policy frameworks and international projects, presenting opinions of numerous actors and experts, demonstrates NSA opportunities and constraints for disaster response deployment. Thirdly, the findings at the third layer deepen knowledge of services, roles, and responsibilities as documented in workshops with NSAs and government bodies. Finally, the long-term benefits of NSA engagement in the disaster management system are also promoted through the identification of a voluntary protocol that enables coherent, coordinated involvement.

3.1. Result 1: Coping Capacity—Definition of Areas of Impact of the Non-State Actors: Multiple Sectoral Engagement

The ultimate objectives of non-state actors’ disaster management capacities—including competencies, roles, skills, abilities, professional qualifications, and processes related to coordination, interoperability based on established protocols or communication frameworks, and tasking—derive from taxonomies and definitions of processes and resources, as defined in the United Nations Disaster Risk Reduction Programme (UNDRR) toolbox across 38 sectors [42], by the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the USA (FEMA) into 64 relevant areas for emergency management [43], by the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs into a Glossary of internationally agreed terminology comprising 250 elements [44], in the Handbook of Disaster and Emergency Management of the Directorate Generale (DG) ECHO, represented as a repository of 30 functional areas [20], by the Organisation of Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid (OCHA) in 15 clusters, including nine functional areas of response [8], and in the civil protection pool of the European Union Civil Protection Mechanism (EUCPM), assigned into 145 specialised rescue modules [45] (

Table 1. Illustration of the UN Sendai Framework Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Source: authors’ own elaboration.

No.	Terminology	No.	Terminology
1	Affected population	20	Extensive disaster risk
2	Build back better	21	Hazard
3	Building code	22	Hazardous event
4	Capacity	23	Intensive disaster risk
5	Contingency planning	24	Mitigation
6	Critical infrastructure	25	National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction
7	Disaster	26	Preparedness
8	Disaster loss database	27	Prevention
9	Disaster management	28	Reconstruction
10	Disaster risk	29	Recovery
11	Disaster risk assessment	30	Rehabilitation
12	Disaster risk governance	31	Residual risk
13	Disaster risk information	32	Resilience
14	Disaster risk management	33	Response
15	Disaster risk reduction	34	Retrofitting
16	Early warning system	35	Risk transfer
17	Economic loss	36	Structural and non-structural measures
18	Evacuation	37	Underlying disaster risk drivers
19	Exposure	38	Vulnerability

).

Also, the humanitarian cluster system of OCHA (the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) organises the work of small and large actors in the international humanitarian system [46] into nine clusters or sectors, namely Nutrition, Health, Water/Sanitation, Emergency Shelter, Camp/Coordination Management, Protection, Early Recovery, Logistics, and Emergency Telecommunications. Furthermore, the Sphere Humanitarian Standards project (2018) classified four functional areas, namely water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion (WASH), food security and nutrition, shelter and settlement, and health.

Equally, the European Union’s civil protection mechanism focuses on the modular coping capacities (mixed tactical and aid interventions) in the field of CBRN, Urban Search and Rescue, (Flight) & Shelter, field hospitals, firefighting, water purification, floods, technical assistance support to first-responders, or policy-driven capacities, similar to the UN clusters, such as Humanitarian Food and Livelihood Assistance (HFLA), Nutrition, Health, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), Shelter and Settlements, Education in emergencies, and Protection, covered by officially certified 178 organisations (an open data sheets, statistics of the Non-Governmental Organisations certified as EU Humanitarian partners for the period 2021–2027). It is worth noting that only the actors engaged in the modular system share common protocols with state agencies and public rescuers.

3.2. Result 2: Action Roles Capacitating

According to the Early Warning Initiatives (EWI) Working Group of the Risk-informed Early Action Partnership (REAP), the roles of state and non-state actors in early warning and early action capacity must be delineated to avoid confusion during crises [8], as follows: (1) Strategic Decision-Making, (2) Policy Formulation and Resource Allocation, (3) Tactical Coordination, (4) Implementation Planning and Operational Oversight, (5) Operational Response, (6) Direct Intervention, and (7) First-Responder Activities.

To illustrate the roles, the research draws on metadata from empirical cases presented in the literature. In

Table 2. Illustrative examples of non-state actors’ capacities as per the seven action areas proposed by the Risk-informed Early Action Partnership (REAP). Source: authors’ own elaboration.

N-0	Delineated Roles	Description
N = 1	Roles = “3”,”4”, “5”, “6”, “7”	Citizen Disaster Response in the German Ahr Valley Flood of 2021 hit Western Europe, [47]. The disaster led to increased help from local residents and spurred the formation of semi-professional crisis management teams.
N = 2	Roles = “1”,”3”,”4”, “5”, “6”, “7”	NGOs’ Response to Cyclone Evan in Samoa 2015 [48] presents collaborations with non-state organisations for effective response operations, adapted to changing circumstances, fostered strong relationships within the communities they support.
N = 3	Roles = “1”,”3”,”4”, “5”, “6”	A case study illustrating how the Emergency Response Team of Monday.com and the South African Red Cross [49] worked during the severe flooding in KwaZulu-Natal Province in April 2022.
N = 4	Roles = “1”,”3”,”4”, “5”, “6”, “6”	The view of non-governmental organisations within public institutions on disaster governance, 6 February 2023, the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes [50] refers to the Search and Rescue Association (AKUT), a disaster-focused NGO, which rescued numerous individuals from debris and positively influenced public perception of NGO/NSAs within civil society.
N = 5	Roles = “1”, “2”, “3”, “5”, “6”, “7”	Involvement of Chinese civilian rescue teams significantly contributing to the disaster response during the Henan floods, resulting in an approximate 24% decrease in fatalities. It allowed NGO/NSAs to focus on less specialized tasks, such as relocating survivors and improving rescue results [51].

below are the results of testing the seven delegated roles mentioned above, presented within five examples extracted from historical events reported in scientific studies:

3.3. Result 3: Three Main Engagement Aspects: Capacity, Protocols, and Behavioural Aspects

Database analyses revealed patterns in thematic priorities and the evolution of disaster management research over more than two decades. The process included a multi-phase analytical process for thematic classification, starting with a data familiarisation phase. The analyses present that during the last 20 years the policies, programmes and interests of private and public bodies from the EU and their partnering countries are engaging with early warning systems (23% of projects), emergency response coordination (19%), technological tools for first responders (17%), community resilience building (15%), critical infrastructure protection (14%), and post-disaster recovery frameworks (12%). The analysis reveals that disaster resilience projects providing technological solutions dominate the pipeline of programmes, comprising 38% of all initiatives. Risk and crisis management initiatives are the second- and third-most common focus areas.

Following a comprehensive review, only 140 projects are selected across distinct thematic areas, ranging from communication technologies and crisis management to vulnerable groups and social capital. Each theme represents an essential dimension of disaster management where non-state actors play vital roles. Findings demonstrate that key engagement aspects of NSA include capacity, engagement protocols, and behavioural aspects.

The selected thematic areas are distributed as follows in

Table 3. Thematic criteria and number of interventions. Source: authors’ own elaboration.

Thematic Criteria	Description/Research Definition	No Interventions
community communication (1)	Engaging the local community via networking, distribution of vital information for the aim of keeping order and minimising the damage and stress, this the communication supporting the build-up of networking between affected community sin the field.	N = 4
communication technologies (2)	Used technologies for establishing communication, dissemination of situational awareness, harvesting data and information vital for disaster resilience, effective and timely and early action response to disasters, minimising the suffer of persons.	N = 24
community behaviour in disaster (3)	Demonstrating how the community adopts to the information circulated and whether empathy, discipline and support is provided by individuals.	N = 25
community training and awareness (4)	Delivery of methodologies, strategies and various training and drilling activities and exercises.	N = 33
crisis management (5)	Inter-disciplinary communication, interoperability, engagement of various organisations, organisational communication.	N = 43
culture of risk management/disaster (6)	Developing the culture of understanding and communicating the risk.	N = 23
decision support (7)	Decision support system organisation.	N = 24
disaster communication (8)	General forms, types and modes for dissemination and sharing of information about the risk, evolving hazardous event, threats and also for establishing cooperation and interoperability with responders.	N = 14
first responder (9)	Anybody engaged in the response to any emergency and disasters, or gets actively involved in the development of pre-disaster agreements, protocols, communication standards and service standard delivery protocol including capacity, skills, equipment.	N = 7
risk management (10)	Analyses and assessment of the risks, methods and approaches to resilience.	N = 50
social capital (11)	Social capital importance in disaster communication.	N = 6
social media (12)	Use of the social media in crisis and disaster communication.	N = 8
societal impact on risks (13)	Role of society in disaster communication.	N = 3
technology and society (14)	Technology for increasing communication preparedness and reaction of the society.	N = 14
vulnerable groups (15)	Communication engaging the vulnerable groups.	N = 6

below:

Findings also highlight the importance of delivering methodologies, strategies, and training activities, including drilling exercises, to build community preparedness and response capabilities, behavioural aspects related to the adoption of circulated information, examining empathy, discipline, and individual support during disasters, while the risk culture is a focus of only 3 interventions.

Further, the “thematic areas” are grouped into three main engagement aspects (“cluster”) of non-state actors within the disaster management ecosystem. The analysis reveals that non-state actors engage within the disaster management ecosystem through three interconnected aspects: coping capacities, behavioural responses, and communication strategies. These findings demonstrate that effective disaster management requires integrated approaches that leverage technology, build community capacity, and ensure inclusive communication across all stakeholder groups.

Figure 2 below illustrates how coping capacities, behavioural and communication aspects, and the engagement of non-state actors interact.

Contextual studies of a sample of 140 projects showcase the three-tiered concept of the dynamic interaction between the NSA and government bodies within the disaster management ecosystem: (1) playing a crucial role in complementing coping capacities and functional response roles, (2) interacting within the system upon communication standards and means, and (3) fostering resilient community behaviours. Also, the NSA’s engagement with formal disaster response systems highlights fundamental tensions in challenging command-and-control emergency management structures. These paradoxes—between flexibility and control, inclusivity and efficiency, spontaneity and professionalism—represent not merely operational challenges but deeper structural contradictions within contemporary disaster governance. Understanding these tensions is essential for developing robust coordination protocols that harness volunteer capacity whilst maintaining system integrity and professional standards.

The detailed examples below (

Table 4. Engagement of the non-state actors in the disaster management ecosystem, three-tier framework.

Areas of Impact
A.  Capacities	Description
Flexibility and Adaptability	Unlike large governmental agencies bound by bureaucratic procedures, NSAs can often respond more quickly and adaptively to emerging needs during disasters, DRIVER+ project.
Resource Amplification	Volunteers significantly expand the human resources available for disaster response and recovery, COBACORE project.
Funding mechanisms for sustainability	The ENGAGE project found that sustainable funding is essential for maintaining engagement beyond immediate crisis periods. NGO/NSAs are also adept at mobilising human, financial, and material resources through their networks, which is especially crucial when official resources are overextended during significant disasters.
Affiliated Volunteers	NSA and individuals are formally associated with established organisations (e.g., Red Cross and volunteer fire departments) and typically receive training, equipment, and clear operational protocols, ELITE and DRIVER+ projects.
Spontaneous Unaffiliated Volunteers	The BuildERS project identifies individuals emerge spontaneously during disasters without prior affiliation to response organisations as a valuable resource and a management challenge, as they arrived without training or formal integration into response structures.
Digital Volunteers	Projects like SLANDAIL and E2mC document the growing phenomenon of digital volunteers contributing remotely through crisis mapping, social media monitoring, and information verification. They represent a significant force multiplier but require coordination mechanisms.
Cost-Effectiveness	Volunteer work also represents a significant economic value that would be prohibitively expensive to replicate through paid professional services, the integration of volunteers is the subject of the research from ENGAGE, LINKS, and BuildERS projects.
Local Knowledge and Community	Trust NSAs typically deeply understand local contexts, vulnerabilities, and cultural sensitivities. Projects like CARISMAND and EDUCEN document how this localised knowledge allows NSAs to tailor disaster interventions appropriately and access communities that might distrust official channels.
Community-Based Volunteers	The LINKS and ENGAGE projects focus on the roles of individual specialists who serve as volunteers and provide medical and health support or even save lives during disaster response.
Community Resilience	The CARISMAND project outlined the role of volunteers and non-state actors in sustaining risk awareness and resilience actions in communities.
B.  Coordination and protocolisation
Policy frameworks for the integration of non-state actors	The ResiStand project demonstrates that effective standardisation and policy development requires active participation from all stakeholder groups. Obviously, the integrated policy frameworks that explicitly recognise and define roles for diverse stakeholders across all phases of disaster management.
Legal frameworks	Establishing clear legal frameworks addressing liability protection, insurance coverage, and compensation for volunteers and NSAs engaged in disaster activities. Research from DRIVER+ project also refers to legal uncertainty as a major barrier to effective stakeholder integration
Innovation and Learning	The COBACORE project highlights how NGO/NSAs often drive innovation in disaster management approaches, testing new methodologies and technologies that may later be adopted more broadly.
Certification system	Develop certification systems recognising the skills and contributions of non-governmental actors while maintaining necessary quality standards. The ELITE project demonstrated that appropriate recognition systems significantly enhance stakeholder motivation.
Coordination Issues	The EPISECC project’s centres on creating coordination challenges and duplicating efforts, and special attention is given to cross-border disaster scenarios. The SHELTER project emphasises that successful disaster management requires establishing clear frameworks for NSA integration that balance the need for coordination with respect for organisational autonomy. Communication methods and tools are outlined by the EPISECC project to addresses the creation of coordination challenges and duplication of efforts, giving special focus to cross-border disaster scenarios.
Coordination Complexities	As the number of actors involved in disaster management increases, coordination becomes more complex as new actors enter the system. The DARWIN project documented the gaps in using traditional mechanisms when dealing with various responders and civic actors in modern disaster contexts. This complexity is further compounded in cross-border scenarios. The DAREnet project found that language barriers, differing protocols, and varying legal frameworks create particular challenges for multi-stakeholder coordination in transboundary disasters.
C.  Behavioural Aspects
Cultural competence as a core capability	The IMPACT project demonstrates that cultural competence—the ability to understand and effectively engage with different cultural contexts—should be considered a fundamental capability for disaster management professionals.
Co-design with cultural sensitivity	Projects like CUIDAR and LINKS identify participatory approaches involving diverse stakeholders in the design of disaster management strategies as significant.
Leveraging cultural bridges	The CARISMAND addresses the capacities of NSAs and community-based organisations as cultural mediators for the affected communities, translating needs and capacities in both directions.
Cultural adaptation of tools and methods	DRIVER+ focuses on adapting disaster management tools, protocols, and training materials to different cultural contexts rather than imposing standardised approaches.
Recognition of cultural diversity within communities	The EDUCEN highlighting that nuanced approaches should be applied to different groups so that differences are not ignored. Also, during emergencies, cultural groups cannot be treated as monolithic.
Intersectional vulnerability factors	The BuildERS mapping factors multiplying the vulnerability to disasters and emergencies, such as age, disability, socioeconomic status, language barriers, immigration status, and geographic isolation.
Dynamic vulnerability	The MOVE project highlights that vulnerability is not static but changes over time and across different hazard contexts. Individuals who are resilient in one scenario may be vulnerable in another.
Beyond victims to agents	CUIDAR and ENGAGE projects emphasise on reconceptualising vulnerable groups not merely as victims requiring assistance but as active agents with valuable knowledge, perspectives, and caps.

) illustrate how the three-tiered aspects of NSA engage areas are “discussed” within the final sample of 140 projects, see also Appendix A: The list of all reference projects is added under the bibliography section.

Type of disaster-related topic analysed/explored Reference project*.

To conclude, this partial result indicates that developing strong partnerships within and between government agencies and NSAs helps ensure an integrated response, resilience-building and disaster planning, all of which are essential features of resilient communities. Non-state actors significantly expand disaster response capabilities through three distinct volunteer types: affiliated volunteers with formal training, spontaneous, unaffiliated volunteers who emerge during crises, and digital volunteers who contribute remotely through crisis mapping and social media monitoring. This volunteer work represents substantial economic value that would be prohibitively expensive through paid services alone, whilst providing crucial local knowledge and community trust that official channels often lack. Yet critical coordination challenges and solutions remain open for discussion amongst all actors, who shall develop and adopt frameworks explicitly recognising diverse stakeholder roles across all disaster management phases, with active participation from all groups. The project analyses highlight that clear certification systems shall be in place to recognise skills and contributions whilst maintaining quality standards, significantly enhancing stakeholder motivation.

Finally, the described positive contributions from NSAs lay the foundation for developing and maintaining strong partnerships between government agencies and NSAs, ensuring an integrated response, resilience-building, and disaster planning—all essential features of resilient communities. Success requires balancing coordination needs with respect for organisational autonomy.

3.4. Result 4: NSA Self-Assessment of Social Capital

Direct engagement with non-state actors in open, experimental activities demonstrated how the local public crisis authority interacts with them and which capacities are highly valued. The exercise identified distinct NSA and volunteer categories, each contributing unique capabilities to disaster response. Effective coordination requires understanding these differences and deploying each type strategically.

The interactive group exercise (30 April 2025, Stara Lubovna, Slovakia) encompasses the distribution of roles and the clarification of the social capital of non-state actors during the preparedness phase. The experiment is conducted in three focus groups, with activities requiring active leadership by ad hoc-nominated “team leaders” to test the participants’ minimum organisational response culture (N = 50). The interactive group exercises engaged participants in three rounds starting from answering the following four essential questions:

• How do you imagine ensuring communication between formal and informal volunteers during an emergency?
• What are the main key skills that volunteers should have to be helpful at the scene of an emergency?
• How would you create a partnership between formal and informal volunteers before the crisis?

The participants regrouped thematic responses into three priority areas of:

(i)

Mobilisation, proper and correct informing, and reliance on a well-structured communication hub are envisaged to ensure information flows efficiently despite technological challenges. Although experienced non-state responders propose the use of advanced communication systems, such as walkie-talkies and intercoms, the use of technology seems less important than acknowledging the agreed approach to mobilisation and activation requests for cooping capacities.

(ii)

Tasking of NSA aligns with commitments and references skills, competencies, and roles already described in the previous part 3.1. The aforementioned 15 thematic areas are further broken down into specific examples, such as first-aid skills, highly valued for basic life support; wound care techniques; techniques that save more lives, minimise harm, and provide immediate psychological and crisis intervention assistance in critical situations. Understanding communication protocols and the ability to operate communication devices are also highly ranked to ensure proper reporting and task delivery to team members and affected communities, based on empathy, active listening skills, and clarity in verbal instructions. Amongst the others, the following technical capacities for tasking are pinpointed: Logistics Management, IT Communications Systems, Interpreter and Cultural Mediation, Medical Staff, and search-and-rescue personnel with experience working in hazardous environments, at heights, underground, or with flammable substances. Mastery in these areas necessitates specific training and documented verification of qualifications to ensure safety and efficacy during sensitive or hazardous operations.

(iii)

Coordination is considered an organised approach under which the spontaneous volunteers and organisations are expected to act, being supervised and provided with clear information about the forms of engagement, to minimise any misconduct and risks during the response. The coordination mechanisms proposed by participants are as follows (Figure 3):

Adaptability in tasking is highlighted by participants in the exercise, ensuring flexible responses and informed decisions in rapidly changing circumstances. Crisis leadership competencies are essential for managers of volunteer teams to mitigate chaotic or harmful situations. Nevertheless, in emergencies, people with decision-making authority should carefully weigh potential consequences while acting quickly to ensure protection and save lives.

Emotional stability skills are valuable for leaders and spontaneous volunteers to reassure the affected population that they are safe and protected. However, when encountering potential hazards in the terrain, they should take appropriate precautions to safeguard themselves, their team, and the populations they assist. Additionally, the “ad hoc response hub” or “command centre” is proposed to govern the effective distribution of tasks, roles, and information, ensuring that information flows quickly from those who possess it to those who require it, thereby guiding strategic decisions. The participants proposed the following role distribution per type of non-state actors/individuals (

Table 5. Types of volunteers in disaster response. Source: authors’ own elaboration.

Volunteer Type	Characteristics	Typical Roles
Trained Disaster Management Volunteers	Specially prepared for emergency situations	Rescue, relief distribution, evacuation, healthcare
Existing Organisation Volunteers	Already involved in community activities	First aid, community liaison, needs assessment
	Emerge during disasters without prior affiliation	Ad hoc assistance, logistics support, manual labour
Corporate Volunteers	Provided by private sector companies	Specialised expertise (logistics, IT), in-kind support
International Volunteers	Travel from other countries to assist	Specialist skills, though, often face cultural barriers
Online Volunteers	Contribute remotely via digital platforms	Mapping, IT support, data analysis, translation

):

Finally, the SEE exercise encompasses the distribution of roles among NSA/volunteers and provides practical insights, demonstrating that effective disaster management requires public crisis authorities to take leadership in establishing coordination hubs before seasonal disasters occur. Establishing communication protocols and activation procedures before emergencies arise is a critical recommendation from participants and aligns with the requirements for clear role distribution, task definition, and delineation of competencies and responsibilities across all NSA/volunteer types during the preparedness phase. The coordinated command structure is perceived as being created through response hubs to govern information flow and strategic decision-making efficiently. In conclusion, success depends on coordination led by district crisis authorities, ensuring clear engagement guidelines to minimise misconduct and maximise effectiveness during response operations.

3.5. Result 5: Linking Existing ISO Standards to the Standards for Disaster Engagement of the Non-State Actors

A meticulous examination of existing ISO professional standards reveals that some can be linked to the “disaster management ecosystem” and adopted. The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO, 2011) [52] and CEN, the European Committee for Standardisation, are considered fundamental sources for this research on standardising processes, products and competencies. Analyses of the studies showed that interoperability was largely standardised from a technological perspective, but rarely drew on the existing ISO and CEN standards; other standards are applied to coordinate inter-organisational responses through standardised protocols and operational tasks that enable coordination.

Several available standards guiding the disaster risk reduction and response efforts are summarised in

Table 6. A list of ISO related norms to the disaster management ecosystem. Source: authors’ own elaboration.

No.	Name of Standard *	Short Description
N-1	ISO 31000 [53]	The risk management standard provides systematic approaches to managing organisational risks.
N-2	ISO 2232053 [53]	The standard ensures timely, relevant operational information through standardised processes.
N-3	Sphere Standards [54]	The humanitarian norm defines the minimum acceptable levels of humanitarian assistance. Sphere Standards ensure that humanitarian assistance meets quality requirements, facilitates coordination among aid organisations, and advocates for the rights of affected populations.
N-4	ISO/IEC 27001:2013 [53]	The standard helps the incident response entities assess and improve their capabilities in managing emergencies (crises, disruptions, and disasters).
N-5	ISO 41000, ISO 41001 [53]	The standard refers to facility management mandates for the development of emergency response plans, ensuring organisations are prepared for various scenarios, including natural disasters, by integrating them into overall risk management, emergency preparedness, and business continuity plans. Both core disaster management standards provide guidance.
N-6	ISO 14000 for environmental management [53]	Focusing on the regulations for environmental protection, including environmental management plans, setting environmental controls, and tracking environmental management objectives.
N-7	ISO 26000 for social responsibility [53]	General and worldwide guidance for achieving and practising social corporate responsibility.
N-8	ISO22393:023 Security and resilience—Community resilience [53]	Guidelines for planning recovery and renewal
N-9	ISO 9001:2015 for quality management [53]	Focuses on improving performance related to products, services, and customer outcomes.
N-10	Collaborative emergency response–Common addressing format and emergency identification protocol (CWA 18013:2023) [2]	Guiding principles on the hierarchical naming system of the public and private safety agencies and emergency authorities. The standard refers to the cooperation and interconnectedness of different public safety agencies and rescue teams to effectively respond to crises. A common addressing format to identify the agencies and their teams/departments.
N-11	The CWA on Requirements and recommendations for social media early warning messages in crisis and disaster management (CWA 18005:2023) [2]	This is a set of recommendations for the preparation, design, and visualisation of social media messages regarding early warning messages and notifications in crisis. Promoting consistency in messaging across different organisations is a set of approaches regulating the design of social media warning messages to alert citizens during emergencies.
N-12	Exchanging information about building and infrastructure damaged by using a Common Alerting Protocol (CWA 18022:2023) [2]	A set of guiding principles for disseminating information about the status of buildings and/or infrastructure after an incident. Establishment of a formalised way to report (describe and disseminate) promptly and automatically transfer information.

* Remark: ISO organisation and CEN- the European Committee for Standardisation for Voluntary Standards.

below.

A closer look at the standards shows that some relate to technical robustness, risk management, organisational aspects, and human resources in companies and in critical and strategic infrastructure operators:

• management system standards for overarching frameworks for organisational resilience,
• infrastructure standards unifying codes for essential facilities and networks,
• technical equipment standards provide specifications for tools and technologies and ensure that critical structures can withstand disasters and continue functioning during emergencies.
• coordination standards propose a set of protocols for a multi-agency response.
• information management standards concern the systems and formats for data collection and sharing.

Although not fully in use due to the certification process and the accessibility of ISO to smaller organisations or public authorities, many spontaneous initiatives follow the ISO philosophy to tailor very specific standards for the multiple actors engaged in disaster communication. Again, access is very limited. Similarly, the European Union provides a certification system for the staff of rescue modules and guidance to a limited number of representatives from the cooperating capacities of the EU MS. In general, the INSARAG Community Responder Training promotes both local support and coordination of coping capacities, interaction with communities, and technical skills. The INSARAG standards form the core of the standard operating procedures for all EU modules (N = 148), and some crisis intervention units are adopting the INSARAG coordination and response protocol to ensure interoperability, especially across borders.

3.6. Result 6: Voluntary Standards for NSA Engagement in the Disaster Management Ecosystem

Unlike rigid hierarchical coordination mechanisms, an innovative initiative by five organisations from the V4 area of Europe, representing broad European and international NSA networks, proposes formalising and acknowledging NSA engagement through voluntary adherence to protocols and horizontal collaboration principles. The key differentiators from the standards described above in Section 3.3 are flexible management structures; integration of a collaborative culture as a foundational element; capability-based resource allocation algorithms that respect organisational autonomy; and recognition of NSA-specific strengths, such as community knowledge, volunteer mobilisation capacity, and rapid adaptability to changing circumstances.

The elaborated, multi-layered voluntary protocol follows well-established INSARAG framework and other related international standards. Participants in international consultations, including workshops and consultative meetings, declared a uniform set of standards and protocols as a result of 18 months of applied work by professionals and volunteers engaged in the project “Capacity building for the non-governmental first responders and humanitarian workers” (No. 22320002).

Beyond traditional command-and-control tools, the voluntary common protocols facilitate genuine interoperability by enabling collaborative tools and services for information sharing across organisational boundaries, transcending the limitations of sector-specific reporting mechanisms that characterise traditional cluster systems. By systematically integrating NSA knowledge of community needs and vulnerabilities, the framework addresses critical intelligence gaps that often plague international response mechanisms, ensuring that interventions are contextually appropriate and culturally sensitive from the outset. The tiered architecture enables dynamic coordination of capacities and distribution of resources through role-allocation algorithms designed for first responders, “mobile” spontaneous, organised professional voluntary or paid non-state employed individuals, experts, workers (social, health, humanitarian, MHPSS), rescuers, aid supplies, and affected populations, adapting to evolving disaster scenarios.

This approach explicitly incorporates ongoing community development and NSA capacity-building as integral components, ensuring that disaster response contributes to enhanced resilience and preparedness for future events.

The value added arises from synthesising humanitarian principles with operational flexibility, creating a framework that respects organisational autonomy whilst ensuring coordinated action. This balance addresses a persistent tension in disaster response: the need for unified action alongside the preservation of the diverse capabilities and approaches that different organisations bring to crisis scenarios.

The model, developed over five expert meetings by a group of V4 non-state disaster responders and volunteers, summarises the elements of volunteer disaster response norms for the engagement of non-state actors in crisis management, organised into six functional standards:

Standard 1: Safety and Protection. The authors also propose the use of open source for training, for example, B-safe (INSARAG), and the use of ethical, humanitarian principles defined under the International Humanitarian Charter and Sphere Standards, as well as other sectoral standards such as CHS (Core Humanitarian Standards) and MISMA (Minimum standard for market analysis).

In addition, Standard 2: Monitoring and Evaluation addresses reporting and quality responses, delineating data collection and analysis formats and approaches regarding privacy and vulnerable populations.

Further, Standards 3 and 4 address coordination and interoperability, emphasising the need to adopt a widely accepted, effective decision-making and coordination structure for the network, including a model of teaming, leadership, and tasking among members.

Moreover, particular attention to the trained and competent staff is emphasised in Standard 4: Roles, Competencies, and Technical Standards, to ensure a unified approach to team composition, define clear standard operating procedures, and ensure mastery in four vital competencies: operations, planning, logistics, and finance/administration.

Finally, Standards 6: Community Engagement and Education and Standard 5: Crowdsourcing guide the engagement of communities and citizens, mobilisation of resources, and advocacy for mobile and online volunteer-based work. A specific highlight is transparency in fundraising efforts and the crafting of communication tools for planning, collecting feedback, and increasing risk awareness. By respecting these standards and striving to meet them through various forms of training and field and tabletop exercises, non-state frontline and second-line responders can ensure safe operations and an informed crisis response, characterised by effective coordination and data-driven decision-making (Figure 4).

To summarise, it is possible to acknowledge that the proposed norm by non-state actors from the V4 countries reflects both internationally recognised technical and humanitarian standards. A question for further discussion is to what extent the public and government agencies also respect the internationally recognised norms and technical standards at the local level.

4. Discussion

The research outlines several critical dimensions of integrating NSAs into response systems, including operational challenges and policy considerations. A major concern is balancing the flexibility and adaptability of NSAs and volunteers, which make them valuable partners, with the need to ensure quality, safety, and coordination. Although non-state actors can operate outside bureaucratic structures and respond effectively, that same flexibility can create coordination constraints with response agencies. The engagement of spontaneous or professional volunteers and NSAs is not clearly defined within response systems; instead, individual agreements or protocols are used. This creates tensions in ad hoc networking with organisations that handle capacities, sources, and materials. The research emphasises that a primary step towards resolving this problem is to introduce minimum response capacity and organisational standards, or a voluntary protocol. It shall primarily focus on coordination protocols and communication.

Building on several practices identified in the article, the following recommendation could be made. The state and public agencies could establish mechanisms for inclusive governance of all actors in preparation for and response to disasters or emergencies, thereby formalising the participation of NSAs, volunteer management organisations, and communities. This can be achieved through regular preparation exercises and formal communication protocols that clearly outline each party’s contribution and role. It can also be achieved through regular consultations, which lead to the recognition of non-state actors by including them directly in response plans, the chain of command, crisis leadership communication, and the crisis management approach.

Additionally, some national practices mapped demonstrate that addressing legal issues related to insurance for non-state first- and second-line responders, liability protection, compensation mechanisms, and formal activation protocols, which are handled by local crisis managers and/or official emergency and disaster response agencies, can enhance professional disaster-response volunteering. Private entities could also share the community responsibility and invest in further education and professionalisation to mitigate legal uncertainties and liabilities.

However, the discussion on acknowledgement shall be opened at various levels and across countries. It will adhere to existing standards, licensing, and accreditation formats, while also embracing internationally accepted standards for disaster response and the roles of first-line and second-line responders. The standardisation mechanisms shall be tailored to the roles and competences of specific actors, enabling the introduction of multilevel certification. A common framework for humanitarian rescue integrity, grounded in international humanitarian law and communication and coordination principles, shall serve as the foundation for minimum standards. Amongst all the research highlights, the following critical areas shall be subject to standardisation:

• Coordination and organisation protocol to ensure interoperability and coherence of the action,
• Robust understanding of the crisis communication protocols to achieve information sharing across organisational boundaries
• Promoting broadly liability, insurance, and safety responsibilities amongst NSAs and volunteers, which is broadly neglected today
• Enabling preparation for the certification or accreditation system that provides certainties for handling minimum requirements, yet avoiding bureaucracy or any non-transparent actions or power imbalances between organisations

In conclusion, further discussions may focus on solutions to mobilise diverse professional expertise across sectors, treating those individuals as spontaneous volunteers and ensuring their engagement in preparation consultations or exercises, or, at least, on defining a system for managing non-professional volunteers that ensures effective communication and coordination.

5. Conclusions

This research paper addresses ongoing discussions, uncertainties, and unresolved challenges surrounding the NSA’s engagement in disaster management. It critically examines professionalisation, coordination protocols, and the balance between autonomy and accountability within contemporary disaster management ecosystems. The involvement of non-state actors is critical for safeguarding human life, promoting community wealth, and ensuring the sustainability of societies vulnerable to disaster-related risks across diverse cultural and social contexts. Realising the potential of these actors requires a comprehensive understanding of how private entities can participate in public protection, rescue, and response efforts while respecting established functional domains and integrating standardised protocols to achieve interoperability in resource organisation and management.

From a political perspective, this research provides a comprehensive examination of the value and roles of NSAs within the disaster management ecosystem. It contributes to policy development by offering government decision-makers essential insights to formalise cooperation frameworks with NSAs. The findings present multiple solutions grounded in best practice, the literature review and collective consultation, and they enable governments to establish or propose activation and coordination protocols. These mechanisms facilitate rapid deployment without compromising systematic oversight. Additionally, this analysis provides NSA stakeholders with a critical understanding of the complex landscape of disaster management.

The findings indicate that engagement within regulated systems is essential for effective life-saving operations, rather than being solely a matter of bureaucratic compliance. Unregulated participation undermines both individual efforts and collective response capacity. Key findings support the systematic integration and coordination of required and activated external resources. Furthermore, professionalisation is critical to enhancing NSA capabilities. Standardised protocols and training increase effectiveness without diminishing organisational independence or innovative approaches.

The research’s main recommendation is that successful disaster response depends on mutual understanding. Governments must recognise the value of NSAs, while non-state actors should acknowledge that systematic engagement and professionalisation ultimately serve the paramount objective of preserving human life.

As NSAs are effective at networking, cooperation, and crowdfunding, and at demonstrating professionalism and complementary values, this research lays the groundwork for their engagement in crisis management systems by promoting standards across diverse functional areas of coping capacity.

Although the “engagement” is often used to illustrate shared community responsibilities, it still requires both acknowledgement and formal inclusion within the crisis leadership response mechanism.

Last but not least, establishing a protocol for coordinated awareness and response through continuous communication of roles and competencies is a prerequisite for challenging the negative impacts of disasters. Formally recognised standards for coordination at both local and international levels can also be achieved by introducing them.

• identification of complementary capacities, strengths and needs across governmental and non-governmental actors following contingency and crisis planning based on risk analyses of the resilience of the communities,
• tasking and acknowledging specific competences of a unique nature that could be considered contributions of different actors,
• definition of forms of activation and communication with designated groups of actors who are prescribed as part of the local, regional, national, or international plan of action in case of emergencies, transboundary mass casualty event or disaster
• largely promotion of joint exercises and consultations to build relationships, test coordination mechanisms, and identify areas for improvement

In conclusion, the engagement of non-state actors in the disaster management ecosystem underpins the outstanding challenges in co-creating adequate systems to govern external capacities alongside the routine practices of the central crisis management approach.