Unlike private technologies, DPIs are deployed to help a country meet its economic and societal objectives. Hence, a citizen’s issues with their DPI could become a violation of the social contract between them and the state. With rapid deployments of DPIs across 100+ countries, the grievance redress function cannot be ignored or delayed any further. How can we ensure that new DPIs have a functional GRM upon launch? What must we aim for, for DPIs already operating at scale? What does it look like for a GRM to deliver on its mandate?
This article published on 28th October 2026 as a guest-authored piece in the Digital Impact Alliance dives into how those who run DPIs (DPI Operators), and their overseers and funders can establish whether a DPI’s grievance redress mechanisms are working well, and what they can do to make these fit-for-purpose. It specifically discusses the “Wellness Scorecard” that helps to establish whether the DPI’s GRM is governed as a live management function, whether it resolves problems predictably and fairly, whether it is supportable at scale, and whether DPI Overseers have visibility into its performance. The authors foresee three pathways for impact from the adoption of the Wellness Scorecard. First, is by signaling competitiveness and leadership by the DPI operator. Second is by leapfrogging GRM development within new-to-DPI jurisdictions, and third, is by informing international funders what to fund and where to demand higher standards from.
Read Digital Article : Redress, the Social Contract, and DPI: Putting People First