 Engagement with and accountability to people affected by crises remains one of the areas in the humanitarian sector that, in recent years, has seen the least progress. While improvements have been made during natural disasters, the implications, risks and opportunities to be held accountable during conflict and violence are not as well known or documented. Rumors, misinformation and propaganda, as well as unmet expectations in highly contested and insecure spaces, erode trust and proximity. They also worsen the asymmetrical power dynamics between humanitarians and those they seek to protect and assist. In 2017, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative surveyed the existing literature and interviewed over 60 humanitarian workers and donors to see what's working, what's not working and how things can be improved in today's digital landscape. Here's what we learned. Affected people are increasingly vocal about their role in humanitarian action and do not want to be left out. This means that humanitarian organizations must learn to relinquish power and control but without compromising humanitarian principles. For that, building mutual trust is key. However, in times of violence, trust can be severely undermined. Maintaining proximity to people, both physically and virtually, is vital. So, how can we get better? 1. Humanitarian organizations need to integrate engagement and accountability into the core of their operations. This requires strong support and policies from humanitarian's executive and operational leadership. This is urgent and non-negotiable. 2. Organizations need to consider adopting the core humanitarian standard on quality and accountability. This can help with 3. Ensuring more systematic inter-agency coordination. We know that in times of conflict and violence, this can be more complicated. 4. Still, on the ground, humanitarian organizations must improve their capacity to assess not just people's needs but also local capacities, the local environment, and local information ecosystems. This, in turn, requires 5. Building and developing trust, both in and out of the digital space with crisis-affected people. To do this, organizations should 6. Demonstrate how decisions are guided or not by local feedback mechanisms. In short, it's not just about listening to what people say, but also acting on it. Therefore, humanitarian organizations need to 7. Become more accessible, physically and digitally. For that, they need to 8. Embrace new forms of collaboration with and seek to positively influence the private sector. But donors too play a critical role. 1. Donors can make demonstrating engagement with and accountability to people a compliance issue, a condition for funding. 2. Donors can fund and use external third-party feedback mechanisms. 3. When feedback demands changes to humanitarian programs, donors need to be more flexible, letting go of their own share of power and control. 4. Donors need to support the digital transformation of humanitarian organizations. 5. And finally, donors must strengthen the humanitarian academic nexus and help co-create applied research that actually helps figure out not just the what or the why, but the how to engage with and be accountable to people affected by crises.