1
Global LEAP 
Off-Grid Refrigerator 
Competition 
Evaluation Report
2
3
Executive Summary
4
Introduction
6
Structure
7
Section 1: Overview of the Competition
8
Why a Competition?
8
Why Uganda? 10
Theory of Change 14
Competition Design and Structure 16
Competition Timeline, Actions, Results
and Learnings 26
Competition Winners 28
Innovation Prize Winners 30
Section 2: Findings 32
Impact Approach 33
Competition General Findings 36
Innovation 40
Capabilities 48
Ecosystem 56
Value for Money 64
Section 3: Lessons Learned 68
Learnings 68
Challenges and Opportunities 76
Recommendations 76
Conclusion 79
References 80
Acronyms 81
Appendices 82
Impact Framework 82
Sample Field Test Report 88
Partners 92
Contents
4 5
Key Findings
Depending on the test, 12 to 13 Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition finalist devices outperformed off-grid 
refrigerators available in the market in four major tests (steady-state operation [10°C, 32°C, 43°C] and pull-down time).
96% of field testers were happy with the off-grid refrigerators and 100% found the products easy to use.
Four nominees had never worked in the off-grid refrigeration market before the competition.
Over 50% of finalists formulated partnerships to further develop or produce their refrigeration devices with a further 
25% optimistic about building partnerships in the near-future.
Over 1,000 Global LEAP finalist off-grid refrigerators were sold in East Africa as part of Global LEAP Off-Grid Appliance 
Procurement Incentives Programme.
84% of field testers would purchase the off-grid refrigerator they tested.
95% of field testers found that they had increased sales by using the off-grid refrigeration devices.
74% of field testers would be willing to pay between $200 and $700 for a solar home system-compatible 
off-grid refrigerator. 
There are now 17 independently verified, high quality off-grid refrigerators on the market.
On average, 78% of competition partners, judges, and finalists felt that the competition had achieved its 
desired outcomes.
Refrigeration holds the unique potential to unlock economic 
and social progress for billions of un- and under-electrified 
people. Refrigeration can prolong the nutritional value of 
food, diversify diets, enable income-generating activities, and 
reduce the time that households spend shopping or gathering 
food. That said, the marketplace for off-grid refrigeration 
is nascent and penetration of refrigerators in developing 
countries, particularly in rural areas, remains extremely low. 
Highly energy-efficient, appropriately designed and priced 
refrigerators are an essential step to the off-grid appliance 
market’s development and to its subsequent positive 
development impacts.
The 2016-2017 Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition 
was a partnership of the U.S. Agency for International 
Development (USAID), UK aid, Power Africa, and the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE); implemented by CLASP, Energy 
4 Impact (E4I), and DAI; and evaluated by Nesta and IMC. 
The competition was launched to stimulate the off-grid 
refrigeration market in developing countries—particularly 
sub-Saharan Africa. Refrigerators have yet to significantly 
penetrate the off-grid market in sub-Saharan Africa. As part 
of the competition research process, Global LEAP conducted 
desk research and customer surveys to identify what it would 
take to improve viability of off-grid refrigeration. The research 
indicated that refrigeration solutions must be significantly 
more efficient and lower cost than conventional products 
found in on-grid communities. The competition sought to 
address this challenge. 
This evaluation report presents an in-depth overview of the 
2016-2017 Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition’s 
elements including the research and design process, theory 
of change, competition milestones such application intake, 
laboratory testing, field testing, and awards events. The report 
then profiles the winning and finalist refrigeration solutions, 
noting both their performance and key characteristics (e.g. 
volume). After profiling the winners, the report returns to 
the theory of change and evaluates whether the competition 
achieved each desired outcome and the decisions or factors 
that influenced the outcome. Generally, the evaluation finds 
that while the competition inspired some new technical 
performance from the devices and the competition’s field 
test process demonstrated both function and remunerative 
value to field test participants, more technical innovation, 
lower prices, policy change, market linkages, and customer 
awareness are needed for a thriving off-grid refrigeration 
market in sub-Saharan Africa. The report concludes by 
highlighting aspects of the competition that contributed to its 
success—namely dynamic partnerships, a thorough mixed 
methods research process, interlocking incentives, and a 
close relationship to market stakeholders. Finally, the report 
notes lessons learned and, based on these lessons, makes 
recommendations for both future iterations of the competition 
and pathways to strengthen the off-grid refrigeration market.
Executive 
Summary 
6
7
Structure
Each section below provides an outline and analysis of the 
activities and process for that phase of the competition. The 
learning section aggregates the evaluation findings.
Section 1 – Provides an overview of the competition, including 
the basis and intention for the competition, theory of change, the 
competition design and structure, timeline, and winners.
Section 2 – Provides further details on the competition findings by 
first exploring impact through the framework of: • Innovation, or whether the competition incentivized an output 
that met the desired criteria, 
• Capabilities, or whether the competition improved the skills of 
competitors, and
• Ecosystem, or whether the competition affected the broader 
ecosystem, market, or dialogue about off-grid refrigeration 
and SHS, and compiles the finalists’ product and professional 
developments.
Section 3 – Provides competition lessons learned from the 
research, design, implementation, and evaluation phases, 
suggested actions that can be taken to improve future competitions 
in this sector, and other market-shaping activities.
7
The Global Lighting and Energy Access Partnership (“Global 
LEAP”) Awards were designed to transform the global market 
for off-grid energy products by recognizing and rewarding 
the most energy-efficient, highest quality off-grid appliances. 
In September 2016, Global LEAP launched the Off-Grid 
Refrigerator Competition. Off-grid refrigeration appliances 
were selected because refrigeration holds unique potential to 
unlock economic and social progress for the billions of un- and 
under-electrified people globally. 
This report uses Nesta’s Challenge Prize Centre’s theory of 
change and impact framework approach to evaluate and 
assess the impact of the competition. Though this work 
focuses on off-grid refrigeration devices, it is also about the 
organizational growth of the innovators who produced the 
refrigeration devices, and more broadly, about how this 
competition may have influenced the wider ecosystem for off￾grid appliances and solar home systems (SHS) in sub-Saharan 
Africa. 
The report evaluates the competition outcomes and process 
by assessing the impact of the competition at every stage—
before, during, and after winners were selected. Evaluation 
activities were conducted on an ongoing basis during the 
competition period. The evaluation process sought to assess 
both whether the competition achieved the goals it sought 
to obtain as well as how the competition process may have 
contributed to those goals. 
The report is not without limitations. An impact assessment of 
the competition or the long-term performance of the off-grid 
refrigeration devices extends beyond this research’s remit. 
Furthermore, given competition delays which significantly 
impacted the timeline, this evaluation could not report some 
of its intended analyses, especially those pertaining to value 
for money. For those who would like to perform the analysis, 
this report outlines a methodology that can be used to 
calculate the competition’s value for money.
This report is one of several other competition learning 
outputs produced by the partners; this includes a 
comprehensive learnings report by CLASP and another 
evaluation conducted by IMC’s Ideas2Impact (I2I) program, 
each complementing one another to provide a robust 
evaluation of this competition from different perspectives.
Introduction
8
9
Why a 
competition?
Refrigeration enables income-generating activities, prolongs the 
shelf life of fresh foods, reduces spoilage and waste, diversifies 
and enhances the nutritional value of diets, and reduces the 
time that households—particularly female members—spend 
shopping for, gathering, or preparing food. However, the market 
for off-grid refrigeration products is nascent and the prevalence 
of refrigerators in developing countries, particularly in rural areas, 
remains extremely low. Highly efficient, appropriately designed, 
and competitively priced refrigerators are essential to this market’s 
development and to its subsequent positive development impacts.
Inducement competitions are a tried and tested method for 
stimulating innovation. They act as an incentive to achieve a 
specific result, which in this case is to transform the global 
market for off-grid energy. Rather than being a reward for past 
achievements, these competitions can also be used as a tool 
to encourage market, as well as to help create a positive social 
impact.
This section explores the Global LEAP Off￾Grid Refrigerator Competition’s goals, 
design, structure, and the winners who 
emerged as a result.
In Spring 2016, USAID (The United States Agency for 
International Development), through the Scaling Off￾Grid Energy: A Grand Challenge for Development (SOGE) 
and Power Africa, and the U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE) partnered to sponsor the first round of the Global 
LEAP Awards Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition.
1 They 
were later joined by the Department for International 
Development (DFID/UK aid) via their Energy 4 Impact (E4I) 
program, designed to support research and development 
in climate technologies for developing countries. Together, 
implementing partners from each of the agencies, CLASP 
(with DOE and later USAID), DAI (with USAID), and E4I and 
IMC (with UK aid), supported the Global LEAP Awards to 
contribute to the design and launch of an open innovation 
prize competition. This competition focused on off-grid 
refrigeration technologies that both recognized and 
elevated the best existing technologies, and induced the 
creation of new technologies that surpassed the prevailing 
market standards in efficiency, value, and user appeal.
8
9
Section 1 
Overview 
of the 
Competition
10 11
Why Uganda?
As part of the Innovation Prize element of the 2016-2017 
Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition, the partners 
supported a field testing component. While laboratory testing 
can effectively simulate varying temperatures, humidity, and 
customer wear-and-tear, it cannot measure a customer’s 
reaction to and valuation of the product. 
To select a field testing country, the partners looked among 
SOGE priority countries where they had a strong relationship 
with the USAID Mission, a favorable policy environment, and 
where the implementing partners had a significant footprint. 
Based on these criteria and market research, Uganda emerged 
as the best choice. In 2016-2017, the Ugandan market was 
characterized by a growing off-grid market and supportive 
policies. These are key factors for the emergence of the off-grid 
refrigeration market. 
In Uganda, approximately 18% of the rural population 
have electricity access
.
2 Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator 
Competition organizers hypothesized that off-grid shop owners 
would use refrigerators for vending purposes and somewhat 
limited storage of personal food items.
3
 During initial scoping 
research conducted by USAID, it was found that while many 
people did know of off-grid refrigerators and solar home 
systems, interviewees from field research also identified various 
gaps in knowledge of this technology.
To contribute to the competition design and evaluation 
baseline, in August 2016, USAID conducted field research in 
Uganda to understand gaps and determine the areas where 
impact is possible (see Table 1 on page 12).
12 13
FIELD RESEARCH INSIGHTS AREA OF IMPROVEMENT
The USAID research synthesis noted that the market for off-grid refrigeration products is in its 
early beginnings, and the use of refrigerators is low. Market penetration
In Kampala, fridges are quite large and heavy, and these were mainly used by small businesses, 
NGOs, or government institutions. They were not suitable for households. Product design
Companies, such as SolarNow, produce 112L and 35L fridges, but they do not reflect the desired 
dimensions of most respondents of the CLASP survey: units between 50L and 100L. Product design
Research shows that SHS solutions only reach 7% of the addressable off-grid market and are 
usually located in higher-density regions in Uganda. Additionally, most SHS providers are top 
international firms. This competition could help diversify the participants in the SHS market, 
potentially catalyzing domestic or regional innovations. Additionally, the competition may 
contribute to SHS reaching a wider landscape in rural Uganda.
SHS market
Off-grid refrigeration products range from $200 to $1000. USAID’s field research found a 
preference for cheaper options. This finding informed a prize award for “best value” which 
incorporated product costs, energy costs, and durability. 
Product costs
While Uganda was the ultimate choice 
for field testing, the competition did 
not want to limit off-grid appropriate 
refrigeration devices’ success to Uganda. 
A broader goal was to nurture a nascent 
market for off-grid refrigeration solutions 
across sub-Saharan Africa and build 
demand for the SHS that could support 
them. This was illustrated by linking 
the competition to a results-based 
finance incentive scheme for East Africa, 
recognizing the strong SHS market in 
East Africa and the opportunity to 
incentivize SHS companies to sell finalist 
and winning refrigerators.
Table 1 - USAID Research
13
14 15
The Theory of Change was the 
roadmap for the 2016-2017 
Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator 
Competition and details what the 
competition set out to achieve.
Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition Theory Of Change 
3b. Activities 3a. Impact Assumptions
Research with experts 
and end users
Launch and 
implementation
There are few off-grid refrigeration 
products available on the market 
that are appropriate for developing 
country consumers
The competition will signal to 
manufacturers/designers 
and innovators that the off-grid 
market has promising 
opportunities deserving of 
their skills and investment
More efficient appliance including 
refrigerators will boost demand of 
solar home systems connections
Engaging 
stakeholders
Open call 
to action
Launch and 
award event/campaign
Scoping problem 
definition
Recruit experts and judges 
in steps assessment
Media and social
media campaigns
Define results 
statement
Provide support for
B2B partnerships 
Publicizing the prize award
Design competition 
criteria and plan
Laboratory & field testing 
Field testing 
Coordinating donor agency 
partnership
Transform 
global 
market 
for off-grid 
energy 
products
Innovation
2.Outcomes 1. Impact Goal
GENERATE TECHNICAL 
AND MARKET 
INNOVATION 
to develop off-grid 
appropriate refrigeration 
for developing countries
GENERATE SOLUTIONS 
FOR OFF-GRID 
CONNECTIVITY
to give more people the 
benefits of a life with 
electrical goods
MOBILIZE NEW 
TALENTS 
to generate new 
ideas for off-grid 
refrigerators 
GROW A 
DIVERSE MARKET 
FOR EFFICIENT 
OFF-GRID 
APPLIANCES 
to increase income, 
prosperity and 
quality of products 
BUILD B2B 
PARTNERSHIPS
to accelerate 
distribution 
(partnership 
with distributors 
investors)
BUILD VALUE OF 
SOLAR HOME 
SYSTEMS 
to increase demand 
and subscriptions
BUILD CONSUMERS 
CAPACITY 
(Awareness)
to increase the value 
they associate to 
solar systems (local 
business and final 
clients)
RAISE 
MARKET 
AWARENESS 
on the 
existence of 
high quality off￾grid products
Capabilities
Ecosystem
14
Theory 
of Change
16 17
Competition Design and Structure
Nominations
21 Sep 2016 by 10 Feb 2017
by 10 Feb 2017
20 Jan 2017
Nominations open Preliminary finalists 
selected by expert 
panel
Nominators notified of 
preliminary selected 
Nominations due status
Pre-Screening
05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
by 24 Feb 2017 by 13 Mar 2017
by 10 Mar 2017 by 31 July 2017 by 31 Dec 2017 January 2018
by 31 July 2017 August 2017
Commercially-available 
preliminary finalist products 
available for random 
warehouse sampling
Laboratory testing begins Field testing begins Competition winners & finalists 
and Energy Efficiency & Overall 
Value Innovation Prize winners 
named
All samples received by 
test laboratory
Laboratory testing ends 
& winners identified
Field testing ends & 
winner identified
Appropriate Design & User 
Experience Innovation Prize 
winner named
Testing & Verification of Awards Finalists Awards Announcements & Promotions
Timeline and Milestones
After a rigorous research and design phase, the 2016-2017 
Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition launched in 
September 2016. Between September 2016 and January 2017, 
nominations were received from innovators, product developers, 
manufacturers, and distributors. In early 2017, after evaluation 
and selection by an expert panel, the preliminary finalists were 
notified to send their products for laboratory testing. Testing 
took place September-December 2017. Expert judges reviewed 
the laboratory test results and identified Global LEAP finalists 
as well as the winners of the Energy Efficiency and Overall Value 
prizes. Prize winners were announced January 2018.
Finalists with consistently successful laboratory test performance 
qualified for field testing, which took place at sites in Uganda 
during June-August 2018. In September 2018, expert judges 
reviewed field testing results and recommended the winner for 
the Appropriate Design and User Experience prize. The timeline 
to the right notes the original competition deadlines, however 
the deadlines and duration of activities shifted due to significant 
delays in preparations for both laboratory and field testing. 
These changes and their effects are detailed on pages 18-19.
18 19
August 2016
Research 
and Design 
Process
USAID conducted a human-centered 
design-focused research and scoping 
exercise in Uganda. The goal of the 
research was to identify prospective 
customer habits and needs, 
perceptions around refrigeration, 
and what they might store in off-grid 
appropriate refrigerators were they to 
be available. 
September 2017
November 2018
August-November 2016 September 2016 November 2016
CLASP, with funding from I2I, 
conducted a laboratory test of existing 
off-grid refrigerators on the market to 
create a baseline for the performance 
of the competition’s products. The 
baseline testing allowed CLASP to 
create the eligibility criteria for the 
competition as well as build the 
laboratory test method.
E4I conducted an in-depth study 
in off-grid refrigerator use cases in 
Uganda, this firstly provided context 
to how they would run the field test. 
Secondly, it provided a benchmark 
for the results from the field test. The 
off-grid refrigerator survey by E4I was 
used to create the field test method 
for the competition.
Award nominations were open for four 
months, with nominees completing 
a nomination form detailing general 
applicant details, product information, 
product warehouse information, the 
declared product performance, and 
product market data. These details 
were used to determine whether the 
product met the competition eligibility 
requirements and whether it qualified for 
product shipping and testing subsidies.
January 2017 February 2017
The nominations closed. An expert panel of 
judges (included technical, development, 
and off-grid industry and market experts, 
as well as representatives from donor 
agencies supporting the competition) were 
assembled in February 2017 to select the 
preliminary finalists on the basis of the 
nomination forms.
The preliminary finalists had to ship 
product samples for laboratory testing. 
Commercially-ready competitors had to 
make a minimum of 50 products available 
for random warehouse sampling of two 
products. Late-stage prototypes had to 
furnish two products.
October 2018 July 2018 April 2018 January 2018
The field testing results were 
released in October 2018 
to finalists. E4I and CLASP 
conducted another formulaic 
analysis to identify the last 
innovation prize winners (see 
innovation prize winners on 
page 30 for further details).
The products passed customs and 
E4I began coordinating installations 
of the products alongside the 
solar home systems with the 36 
field testers across rural Uganda. 
Data was collected for six weeks to 
inform the field testing results.
Initially field testing was meant to 
begin in April 2018, however, issues 
with shipping from the Netherlands 
to Uganda delayed the process. 
Upon arrival in the country, the 
products were further blocked from 
receipt by Uganda’s customs office 
for almost two months. This created 
further delays in field testing. 
The partners made the official 
announcement and awards event for 
the competition winners, finalists, and 
innovation prize award winners for 
Overall Value and Energy Efficiency at the 
Global Off-Grid Solar Forum and Expo in 
Hong Kong.
December 2017
The laboratory test results were released in 
December 2017. An extensive results report 
was produced. As part of the calculation 
for competition winners and two of the 
innovation prizes, CLASP conducted a 
formulaic analysis to understand who the 
winners were (see competition winners on 
page 28 for further details). 
Due to significant delays in donor fund transfers 
to cover shipping costs and laboratory testing, 
laboratory testing was conducted on preliminary 
finalists’ products in September 2017 using the 
Global LEAP test method at an independent 
testing facility - Re/Gent in the Netherlands. 
Initial funding was supposed to come from DOE, 
however due to political constraints they were 
unable to fund the shipping costs, and due to a 
protracted funds transfer process, USAID was 
not able to cover the costs as intended either. 
DFID fronted the funds for shipping costs which 
USAID paid back at a later date.
The competition closed 
with the announcement of 
the final innovation prize - 
Appropriate Design and User 
Experience at Unlocking Solar 
Capital in Kigali, Rwanda. 
20 21
There were two key award categories to the Off-Grid 
Refrigerator Competition. 
Competition Winners - Based on laboratory testing and 
expert judging panel, with a determination of best in class.
Innovation Prize Winners - Based, depending on the prize, on 
laboratory testing and an expert judging panel or field testing 
and an expert judging panel, which evaluated whether the 
refrigeration devices surpassed prevailing market performance.
The competition recognized the most energy efficient and 
highest quality products in seven categories. The best 
performers in each category were declared the ‘Winner’ for 
that category. The competition nominations were only for 
commercially-available products. 
Table 2 - Competition Categories
SMALL MEDIUM LARGE EXTRA LARGE
REFRIGERATOR 5L-50L 51L-100L +101L
REFRIGERATOR￾FREEZER COMBO 5L-100L 101L-150L 151L-200L +201L
For the Innovation Prizes, commercially-available or late￾stage prototype products were evaluated for their energy 
performance, quality, design, and reliability according to 
rigorous international best practice. There were three 
$200,000 cash prizes for products that demonstrated market￾leading innovation in:
• Overall value
• Energy efficiency
• Appropriate design and user experience
There was a clear distinction between competition winners 
and Innovation Prize winners, as the former is recognized 
as the best overall in each category, while the latter on a 
number of characteristics that meet global standards, lead in 
innovation, and exceed existing market performance. Winners 
were decided by extensive and rigorous laboratory and field 
testing in which expert judges made the final judgment based 
on the results from testing.
Competition Details
21
22 23
Laboratory Testing
“Laboratory testing was a good idea. The criteria gave me guidance about what the market wants – it was a 
benefit for me to see what they valued.”
—David Bergeron, SunDanzer - Finalist
Laboratory testing sought to validate how the products performed vis-a-vis efficiency, cooling, durability, value for money, and truth 
in advertising. Testing took place at Re/Gent, an independent laboratory in the Netherlands. All preliminary finalists were expected to 
send product samples for testing. The timeline of laboratory testing, however, was significantly delayed (see timeline and milestones 
on page 16 for further details).
Examined in more detail in Table 3, the Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition laboratory test method4
 aimed to evaluate a 
combination of quantitative and qualitative performance factors:
Quantitative:
• Power consumption
• Cooling and/or freezing capacity
• Performance in under- and over-voltage conditions
• Performance after exposure to high heat and humidity
• Total cost of ownership
Qualitative:
• Design and usability
• Innovative features/functions
• Warranty (for commercially-available products only)
• Truth in advertising5
TEST DESCRIPTION AMBIENT TESTING 
CONDITIONS
TARGET 
TEMPERATURE
Steady-State 
Operation
Measure a product’s energy consumption 
(in kWh per day) at specified ambient 
temperature & humidity conditions
• Low ambient 
(+10ºC / RH <75%)
• Medium Ambient 
(+16ºC / RH <75%)
• High Ambient 
(+32ºC / RH <75%)
• Harsh Ambient 
(+43ºC / RH <75%)
Stabilization 
at an average 
temperature of 
+4ºC
Pull-down
Measure the cooling time (in hours) of a 
product’s fresh food compartment from 
the ambient condition to a specified target 
temperature
• High Ambient 
(+32ºC / RH <75%)
Stabilization 
< +4ºC
Autonomy
Measure the time (in hours) which a product 
can maintain a specified target temperature 
after a product is disconnected from the power 
supply
• High Ambient 
(+32ºC / RH <75%)
Stabilization 
between 
+4ºC & 12ºC
Voltage Fluctuation
Measure the product performance at high 
(+20% of rated voltage) and low voltage (-10% 
of rated voltage) input
• High Ambient 
(+32ºC / RH <75%)
Stabilization 
< +4ºC
Freezing Capacity
Measure the time (in hours) a product freezes 
a specific amount of filling materials. Only 
applicable to refrigerator-freezer combination 
units 
• High Ambient 
(+32ºC / RH <75%)
Stabilization 
< -15ºC
Table 3 - Test Descriptions
24 25
Field testing occurred between June-August of 2018 to: • Establish how well products perform in a ‘real life’ situation. • Gather information from end users about their experiences 
with the products.
• Inform the Appropriate Design and User Experience award.
All products that satisfactorily completed the 
competition’s laboratory testing process were eligible 
for field testing. Two units per product were placed at 
field test sites chosen on the basis of four factors: • Business profile: Each small retail shop was, to the extent 
possible, of similar size with similar clientele and product 
offerings.
• Climate and location: Test sites were in similar climatic 
zones and were reasonably close together.
• Familiarity with solar: Shop owners had previous 
experience using SHS either at the test site or in their 
homes (e.g. use of a system for lighting and mobile phone 
charging).
• New refrigerator users: Shop owners did not already 
own or use a refrigeration device to assess the product’s 
commercial benefits (e.g. new revenue generation) and 
whether products were perceived as affordable/viable by a 
target market segment.
E4I identified 36 field testers across Uganda, including in 
Masaka, Mbarrara, and Mbale. Following the formal test 
period, functioning, commercially available products and 
the solar home system were left with the shop owners (test 
subjects) as an incentive to participate in the field test.
6
Given delays in shipping, data collection from the field was 
reduced to six weeks from twelve weeks. Concerns were 
raised as well as potential mitigation strategies to ensure the 
new timeline did not change (see Table 4).
CONCERNS MITIGATION
Participant/stakeholder 
queries over the 
contracted timelines.
Early communication and 
amendment of field test 
protocols.
Participants benefit 
from longer-term data 
collection, particularly 
in understanding issues 
of design, usability, and 
potentially durability.
Data can continue to be 
collected for an additional 
6 weeks and will be shared 
with participants following 
the award of the innovation 
prize.
Whether a judgment 
could be made based on 
data from only half the 
collection period initially 
proposed.
Technical performance in 
the field was not expected 
to vary much after the 
initial settling period. User 
preference may change 
over time, though it is 
difficult to know whether 
six weeks is significant. 
This portion of the judging 
criteria weighting could be 
reduced.
25
Field Testing “All us are interested in these solutions being 
applied to the real-world setting...feedback from 
users is critical to make solutions accessible.”
—Makena, E4I - Partner
Table 4 - Field Testing Concerns and Mitigations 
26 27
RESULTS
WHAT WE LEARNED
Research
2015
Design
2015-2016
Launch
21 Sep 2016 - 
20 Jan 2017
Pre-Screening 
Decisions
10 Feb 2017
Human centred design (HCD) 
research; Benchmark and 
baseline studies in Uganda.
Design competition, two
sets of consultations,
design of laboratory
and field-testing methods, 
competition documents.
The launch was a digital
push with strong
communications activity
via the Global LEAP brand.
A panel of expert judges
pre-screened nominations and 
selected ‘Preliminary Finalists’.
Uganda was identified as 
the most viable country 
for a competition given 
how nascent the off-grid 
refrigeration market is.
Having multiple partners 
allows extensive 
scoping research – HCD, 
benchmarking and baseline 
analysis on a variety of
different aspects for the
competition.
RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS
WHAT WE LEARNED WHAT WE LEARNED WHAT WE LEARNED
57 nominations in total
from 28 organizations. 
Diverse group of 
nominations from 14
countries across the world.
24 nominations from a total of 
15 organizations made it through 
the pre-screening.
The communications
push during the call to
entry from implementers 
(CLASP and DAI) ensured a 
high amount of interest.
Global LEAP was a key
factor in attracting
nominations.
This process of prescreening
nominations allowed for a filtering 
of solutions that did not adequately 
meet the set criteria of the 
competition.
Developed implementation and 
communications plan, assessment 
criteria and competition 
evaluation framework.
The design was done in 
continuous consultation with key 
USAID and UK aid stakeholders 
and this helped a quick roll out of 
activities and sign off.
RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS
WHAT WE LEARNED WHAT WE LEARNED WHAT WE LEARNED WHAT WE LEARNED
Product Sampling
24 Feb - 10 Mar 2017
Laboratory Testing
Sep 2017
Field Testing
Jun-Aug 2018
Award
Jan 2018/Nov 2018
Preliminary Finalist products in both the Competition and 
Innovation Prize will be evaluated on qualitative and quantitative 
factors: Quant- power consumption, cooling and/or freezing 
capacity, performance in under and overvoltage conditions, 
performance after exposure to high heat and humidity, total cost 
of ownership. Qual - design, durability and usability, innovative 
feature/functions, warranty (for commercially-available products 
only), truth in advertising. This testing method was developed by 
Global LEAP (CLASP) and references test methods - IEC 62552 and 
WHO/PQS/E003/RF05-VP.4
All products that satisfactorily completed the 
laboratory testing process were eligible for field 
testing. Technical data – internal compartment 
temperature, ambient temperature and relative 
humidity, instantaneous power consumption, 
accumulated energy consumption per day, 
daily power available to product from SHS; and 
user experience data – ease of use, perceived 
technical performance and value,
challenges were collected.
Due to the delayed timeline of 
the competition. The competition 
partners decided to announce two of 
the Innovation Prize Award winners 
in Hong Kong at Global Off-Grid Solar 
Forum and Expo on January 22nd￾24th 2018 as laboratory testing had 
been completed and the decision 
could be made. The final Innovation 
Prize was announced at Unlocking 
Solar Capital in Kigali on November 
7-8th 2018.
Preliminary Finalists who have 
commercially-available products 
must make a minimum of 50 
nominated products available 
for random warehouse testing. 
The administrator’s designated 
sampling agent will randomly 
select two nominated products 
for testing.
There were 11 finalists selected overall 
with 17 nominations.
10 finalists participated with 15 of the 
nominations fully tested.
24 nominations from a
total of 15 organizations
provided product samples.
3 Innovation Prize Awards were 
announced with 7 finalists 
attending the first event at the 
start of 2018, and 0 attending 
the final event.
Laboratory testing is expensive and prior to the 
Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator competition, 
no uniform testing protocol existed. Finalists 
appreciated that by participating in the 
competition, they not only had this expensive 
process paid for, they also got standardized 
and vital feedback on their products’ 
performance.
Field testing provided finalists with 
critical technical information regarding 
the performance of their product in 
the field, as well as user insights and 
experiences of using their product. There 
were significant delays in the products 
clearing Ugandan customs, as well as 
issues in installations and maintenance of 
products whilst in the field.
USAID supporting finalists with 
product shipment costs of 
nominated products, saved finalists 
having to spend out-of pocket. 
Logistics of shipping need to be 
accounted for given the delays in 
processing products.
For the first event, finalists found 
the event useful to network with 
other innovators and potential 
partners, distributors and 
investors. With the final event, 
though no finalists attended, 
Global LEAP promoted the winners 
and finalists throughout the event.
Competition Timeline, Actions, 
Results and Learnings
28 29
The Global LEAP Awards identified winners for the best overall 
product for each size and form factor-based category. The 
competition’s finalists were awarded up to 110 points based on 
the following:
• Laboratory testing: The product’s power consumption, 
cooling performance, and certain design and quality 
factors.
• Expert assessment: An expert panel evaluated the 
quality, design, and usability factors based on data 
provided in nominations and the laboratory testing.
Competition winners were identified by CLASP—awarding 
up to 80 points on total cost of ownership (which is based 
on laboratory testing results of power consumption and 
standardized Global LEAP Awards assumptions about retail 
price, $/kWh, product lifetime, and usage) and performance 
(which is based upon the products’ (i) time to cool a 
standardized load to a steady state and (ii) time holding 
a band of acceptable temperature once power has been 
disconnected). 
The formula for Total Cost of Ownership: 
(Product energy consumption x standardized lifetime usage 
assumptions [kWh] x $/kWh) + (wholesale price x standardized 
retail price modifier)) x Time to Cool to Steady State Modifier 
[where less time is better] x Time Holding Acceptable 
Temperature Modifier [where more time is better] = $XXX. 
In this assessment, Preliminary Finalists with a lower total 
dollar figure received a higher score.
The remaining 20 points were based on the expert 
assessment. A finalist could have earned two points of ‘extra 
credit’ for each year of its warranty beyond the required two 
years, up to eight points in total. Finalists using exclusively 
natural refrigerants received three points of ‘extra credit.’
Competition 
Winners
Table 5 - Competition Winners Specifications
SunDanzer DCR50 PALFRIDGE LC86 PALFRIDGE LC221 METROPOLITAN 
MEFR48C1 BASIL DC170L
Description Small refrigerator Medium refrigerator Large refrigerator Small refrigerator￾freezer combination
Large refrigerator￾freezer combination
Total Capacity 50L 86L 192L 46L 170L
Rated Power Consumption 45W 49W 49W 50W 30W
Daily Energy Consumption 
at 32°C 0.118 kWh/day 0.154 KWh/day 0.281 KWh/day 0.543 KWh/day 1.02 KWh/day
Pull-Down Time 0.55 Hours 1.13 hours 0.76 hours 0.84 hours 0.9 hours
Autonomy 1.35 Hours 1.22 hours 0.76 hours 0.63 hours 0.66 hours
Freezer Capacity n/a n/a n/a 4L 11L
Freezing Performance 
(hours to reach -6°C) n/a n/a n/a Not achieved 6.1
The Competition Winners are listed below:
• SunDanzer DCR50 – Small refrigerator
• Palfridge (The Fridge Factory) LC86 – Medium refrigerator 
• Palfridge (The Fridge Factory) LC221 – Large refrigerator
• Metropolitan MEFR48C1 – Small refrigerator-freezer combination
• Basil DC170L – Large refrigerator-freezer combination
30 31 “Being a part of the LEAP Global Off-Grid 
Refrigerator Competition was an eye-opening 
experience...it introduced us to so many players 
in a market we didn’t really know about” —David Bergeron, Founder and President - SunDanzer
Three Innovation Prizes were awarded to products that clearly 
demonstrated market-leading innovation, as identified by 
the expert panel and by the baseline studies, as well as data 
and observations made during the laboratory testing and 
field testing. Innovation Prizes were awarded for each of the 
following product characteristics: • Energy Efficiency based on laboratory testing
An expert panel assessed the data and observations from 
the laboratory testing. The SunDanzer DCR165 (large 
refrigerator) won the Energy Efficiency Innovation Prize. 
• Overall Value based on laboratory testing 
While a highly energy efficient refrigerator can have 
significant upfront purchase costs, a durable, energy 
efficient refrigerator will have lower energy and 
maintenance costs over time. This prize category sought 
to balance efficiency, durability, and purchase price to 
determine the best customer value for money.
For the purposes of this competition, ‘overall value’ 
referred to the total score as determined by the laboratory 
testing and expert assessment process outlined herein. To 
allow for comparison of commercially-available products 
and late-stage prototypes, nominators of prototypes were 
required to provide an estimated wholesale cost along 
with a detailed justification of that cost. The winner of the 
innovation prize for overall value, SunDanzer DCR50 (small 
refrigerator), was the product with the highest total score 
across all competition categories. 
• Appropriate Design and User Experience based on 
field testing
For the Appropriate Design and User Experience 
Innovation Prize, all finalist products were scored out of a 
possible 60 points. Up to 20 points were allocated through 
a quantitative assessment based on each finalist’s total 
cost of product, a formula-based calculation that included 
standardized assumptions for retail price, 
the cost of energy system installed to power 
the product alongside installation costs and 
any additional hardware. Up to 40 points 
were allocated based on the expert judges’ 
evaluation. The scores provided for each 
finalist was averaged together with the other 
judges scores then added to the total cost 
of product score. Palfridge trading as Fridge 
Factory LC86 (medium refrigerator) achieved 
the highest overall score and was named 
the Appropriate Design and User Experience 
Innovation Prize Winner.
SunDanzer 
DCR50
SunDanzer 
DCR165
Palfridge 
LC86
“Best Value” 
Innovation Prize 
Winner
“Energy Efficiency” 
Innovation Prize 
Winner
“Appropriate 
Design and User 
Experience” 
Innovation Prize 
Winner
Total Capacity (L) 50 163 86
Rated Power 
Consumption (W) 45 150 49
Daily Energy
 Consumption 
at 32°C 
(kWh/day)
0.118 0.191 0.154
Pull-Down Time 
(Hours) 0.55 0.64 1.13
Autonomy 
(Hours) 1.35 1.83 1.22
Innovation 
Prize Winners
Table 6 – Innovation Prize Winners’ Specifications
32 33
Section 2
Findings
This section outlines the approach to impact and 
details the findings for the 2016-2017 Global Off￾Grid Refrigerator Competition. The section begins 
with the findings from the entry nominations, 
which contextualizes the types of innovators and 
solutions that participated, then the findings are 
analyzed in relation to the impact categories, 
namely:
Innovation which seeks to 
assess whether the competition 
attracted new innovators and 
inspired the development of 
new solutions in response to a 
defined problem or need.
Capabilities which seeks 
to assess whether the 
competition fostered 
the development of new 
partnerships, new innovator 
capabilities and mobilized new 
and existing talents. 
Ecosystem which seeks to 
assess whether the competition 
has contributed to developing 
new markets, attracting new 
investors and raising awareness 
of off-grid refrigeration and 
solar home systems.
WHAT FROM TOC SPECIFIC ITEM SPECIFIC 
INDICATOR WHEN WHO HOW QUESTION
Assumptions What 
assumptions? What indicator(s)?
When to collect the 
indicator(s) during 
competition?
What stakeholders will 
inform on the indicator(s)?
What evaluation 
technique? What question?
Activities What activities?
Outcomes What 
outcomes?
These three impact headings organize the competition findings. This impact approach (and theory of change – see page 14) are the building 
blocks for the detailed impact framework (see full Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition impact framework in Appendix A).
Impact Approach
The impact framework supports the impact assessment 
through three steps.
Estimate impact: This action includes understanding what impact 
the competition will generate and identifying key indicators and 
benchmarks to set the scene for future evaluation. This includes 
designing a theory of change, identifying indicators, collecting 
benchmarks – the evidence from the research which supported 
prize assumptions – and designing nomination form evaluation 
questions to collect baseline data from participants.
Manage initial impact: Across the implementation of the 
competition, results are constantly monitored via the nomination 
form data, analyzing laboratory test results, activity surveys, and 
1-2-1 sessions with partners and finalists. The competition collected 
all relevant baselines. Prior to field testing, a mid-term report was 
produced to assess the initial impact of the prize.
Determine impact: After completion of field testing, a series of 
surveys and interviews were conducted with judges and finalists 
to complete the collection of findings and assess them against 
benchmarks and baselines collected during the lifetime of the 
prize. This enabled the team to determine the final impact under 
the terms of this assessment period. The competition’s impact will 
extend several years into the future and long term impact should 
be measured periodically.
32
Table 7: Impact Approach
34 35
To better understand the type of evidence the evaluation was looking to uncover throughout the competition, the indicator grid below provides 
an extensive list of the indicators used to benchmark, baseline, and then track key performance. 
OUTCOMES BENCHMARK BASELINES KPIS OUTCOME NARRATIVE
Generate technical and market innovation to 
develop off-grid appropriate refrigeration for 
developing countries
Current solutions (qualitative) Current solutions (quantitative) Performance in laboratory and field 
tests
Judges feedback
To measure overall technical advancement for off￾grid refrigerations solutions - meeting the needs of 
the Ugandan context and the eligibility criteria
Generate off-grid solutions that improved user 
satisfaction, remuneration, and well-being Usability (access and cost)
Field testing status cohort Field testing results and nominee 
feedback
To measure the effectiveness of the solutions 
generated with a focus on end-users’ reaction to 
new products (focus on effectiveness)
Mobilize talents to generate new ideas for off￾grid refrigerator
# of nominations new to off-grid 
refrigeration
% gender presence in sector
# of nominations that passed 
screening
# of nominations that never 
applied for donor funding
% gender presence in nominations
Motivations for participation
% finalist new to donor funding
% finalist transferred knowledge
% gender presence in finalists
To measure the extent to which the competition and 
prize awards mobilized talents to generate solutions
Build business-to-business (B2B) partnerships 
to accelerate distribution (partnrship with 
distributors investors)
Market research information. Type of support provided Level of finalists’ satisfaction with 
new partnerships
To measure the role of the prize process in 
generating new partnerships. In particular, looking 
at B2B .partnerships that are generated by the 
competition
Build consumers capacity (to increase the 
awareness and value associted with solar home 
systems in local businesses and final clients/
consumers).
% solar power users in Uganda 
aware of off-grid refrigeration with 
SHS.
% solar companies offering 
refrigerators as part of package
Assumptions of cohort before field 
testing
User experience from field testing
Consumers feedback from field 
testing
To measure the level to which both local business 
and consumers react to the innovative solutions 
(focuses on judgement and potential behavioral 
change)
Grow a diverse market for efficient off-grid 
appliances to increase income-generation 
potential and the quality of products
Current demand – in developing 
countries
Current demand - in Uganda
Nominated product market data
Field testers’ records of sales and 
expenditures
Market projections for competition 
finalists
% of improvement in business sales 
vs expenditure
To measure changes in the market in terms of 
market projections from the supply side and income 
improvement from the demand side
Build value of solar home systems to increase 
demand for new systems and to increase SHS 
values
USAID target for growing solar 
system value
Proposed cost in nomination form Results from cost perception 
analysis.
Attitudes towards using SHS
To measure the extent to which bringing innovation 
in this sector will increase the value of SHS and how
Raise market awareness of high quality off-grid 
products
Current market perception Types of communications action
Presence at events
# of high-quality off-grid 
refrigeration products in market.
Attitudes towards off-grid products
To measure change in perception form the key 
players in the solar home system market for 
developing countries
As the theory of change on page 14-15 details, the 
competition identified eight outcomes related to 
transforming the global market for off-grid energy 
products:
1. Generate technical and market innovation to develop off￾grid appropriate refrigeration for developing countries.
2. Generate off-grid solutions that improved user satisfaction, 
remuneration, and well-being.
3. Mobilize new talents to generate innovative off-grid 
refrigerators.
4. Build business-to-business (B2B) partnerships to accelerate 
distribution (partnerships with distributors and investors).
5. Build consumers’ capacity (to increase the awareness 
and value associated with solar home systems in local 
businesses and final clients/consumers).
6. Grow a diverse market for efficient off-grid appliances to 
increase users’ income-generation potential and the quality 
of products.
7. Build value of solar home systems to increase demand for 
new systems and to increase SHS values.
8. Raise market awareness of high quality off-grid products.
The evaluation findings are comprised of work conducted 
by all partners and include pre-launch activities such as the 
prize scoping research, USAID’s human-centered design 
field research, CLASP’s stakeholder survey and request for 
information, CLASP’s off-grid refrigerator baseline testing 
data analysis, and E4I’s benchmarking survey of on-grid 
refrigerators. The findings also include the laboratory testing 
method and results conducted by CLASP and the field-testing 
method and results conducted by E4I and CLASP. Additionally, 
Nesta’s Challenge Prize Centre complemented these materials 
with desk research, nomination entry form data analysis, 
benchmark and baseline setting, laboratory and field testing 
results, surveys with finalists and judges, field research 
conducted alongside the field test team, interviews with 
finalists and partners, and a partner focus group. It should be 
noted, however, that there were difficulties with conducting 
some segments of the evaluation, namely due to low response 
rates on surveys and interviews as well as some challenges 
reaching finalists and judges.
The analysis will trace the stages of the competition and the 
different ways that impact manifested in innovation, innovator 
capabilities, and influences on the ecosystem. The first stage of 
the competition was to analyze the entry nomination process.
Table 8: Indicator Grid
36 37
Competition 
General 
Findings
The Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition was 
able to engage with innovators from around the world to 
incentivize a diverse range of solutions.
The competition received a total of 57 nominations 
(proposed off-grid refrigeration solutions) from 28 
organizations. This exceeded expectations by 285% as 
the initial target was 20 nominations. The nominations 
originated from 14 countries – with the majority coming 
from China, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Chart 1: Applicants by Country
The competition was open to commercially viable products 
and late-stage prototypes. The former were eligible for both 
the competition and innovation prize, whilst the latter were 
only eligible for the innovation prize. The vast majority of 
submissions were commercially viable products from 
enterprises ranging from small-scale organizations with 
0-10 employees to larger firms with over 200 employees. 
This range was anticipated given that off-grid refrigeration 
is still a niche (medical cold chain, outdoor recreation 
refrigerators) and/or a nascent space (domestic and 
productive use).
While rare in the manufacturing industry, the competition 
organizers valued gender diversity. In the nomination forms, 
they inquired what percentage of women were represented 
in the team submitting the nomination. Ten organizations 
had 0-20% of women working in their teams, 16 
organizations had between 21-40%, and two had between 
41-60%. Unfortunately, there are no existing figures relating 
to gender diversity in the off-grid refrigeration space and 
they remain spotty in the off-grid sector more generally.
When asked how competitors learned about the 
competition, the majority of nominations noted that 
they learned about the prize from Global LEAP or their 
partner networks. The Global LEAP brand is recognized 
across the off-grid sector for being the leading authority on 
off-grid appliances, and their brand recognition and partner 
networks inspired nominations. 
 
The technical breakdown of proposed solutions from the 
nominations show that 17 nominations were battery￾based and 16 were solar-direct drive. Solar-direct drive 
refrigeration devices can be more reliable refrigerators, but 
the risk is that they build demand for refrigerators rather 
than demand for SHS.
By category, 38 nominations were for a refrigerator and 
19 were for the refrigerator-freezer combination unit. The 
refrigerator was the focal point. The competition did not 
research perceptions of freezer units and their value. 
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Australia
India
France
Nigeria
Bangladesh
Japan
Germany
South Africa
China
Kenya
Hong Kong
Swaziland
United Kingdom
United States
ALL COMMERCIALLY 
VIABLE PRODUCTS ALL PROTOTYPES
Total nominations 48 9
Total 
organizations 26 8
Countries 14 7
Most common 
organizations
42 commercial 
enterprises
7 commercial 
enterprises
Types of solutions
32 refrigerator
16 refrigerator-freezer 
combination
6 refrigerator
3 refrigerator-freezer 
combination
Prior applicant for 
or recipient of 
donor funding
3 applied for USAID/UK aid 1 applied for USAID/UK aid
Table 8 - Comparing Commercially Viable vs. Prototype Refrigerators
38 39
Chart 2: Competition Outcomes Achievement
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree or Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Generate technical 
and market innovation 
to develop off￾grid appropiate 
refrigeration for 
developing countries
Generate solutions for 
off-grid connectivity 
(to give more people 
the benefits of a life 
with electrical goods)
Mobilize new talents 
to generate new 
innovations for off￾grid refrigerators
Build consumers 
awareness of the 
value of off-grid 
solar home systems
Grow a diverse 
market for eddicient 
off-grid appliances
Build the value of 
solar home systems
Raise market 
awareness
60%
40%
20%
0%
39
40 41
Innovation 
The innovation category assesses the 
extent to which the Global LEAP Off-Grid 
Refrigerator Competition had an impact 
on generating off-grid solutions that 
improved user satisfaction, remuneration, 
and well-being through technical and 
market innovation. Put another way, it 
assesses whether the competition induced 
the innovations it sought.
“We have never produced a commercially 
marketable off-grid refrigerator. The competition 
acted as an impetus to try and create some kind of 
solution.”
—Nessar, MAKS PowerTech Ltd - Finalist
Outcome 1: Generate technical and market 
innovation to develop off-grid appropriate 
refrigeration for developing countries.
The competition succeeded in incentivizing meaningful, if not 
wholesale, technical innovation. Depending on the test, 12-13 
of the 24 tested off-grid refrigeration devices outperformed 
the market-available off-grid refrigerators in four major tests 
(steady-state operation [10°C, 32°C, 43°C] and pull-down time). 
In three other tests, the market available off-grid refrigerators 
outperformed the competing refrigerators, and in one test, they 
tied.
All judges agreed that the competition helped 
generate technical and market innovation to 
develop off-grid appropriate refrigerators and 
considered the solutions produced via this 
competition to be innovative. Nonetheless, 
one of the judges acknowledged “there 
were certainly a few products that caused 
me some concerns in terms of quality or 
performance. However, the majority of 
products surpassed my expectations of 
efficiency (and, as a result, cost), while still 
delivering the required performance.” 82% of 
competition stakeholders felt this outcome 
was met during the competition, as all finalists 
demonstrated technical advancements in 
off-grid refrigeration. Indeed, a number of 
the finalists and winners noted the eligibility 
requirements and criteria guided them in 
what type of solution they should produce. 
To understand whether the products have 
achieved technical innovation, the nominated 
products were analyzed against those already 
in the market. The average laboratory test 
results of the nominated solutions and 
refrigerators from the baseline study shows 
AVERAGE LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS7
TESTS*** SOLUTIONS BASELINE
# OF 
SOLUTIONS 
THAT EXCEEDED 
BASELINE
Pull-Down Time 1.05 Hours 2.28 Hours* 7
Steady-State
 Operation (10°C)
13 solutions 
satisfactory 0.255 kWh p/day* 12
Steady-State
 Operation (32°C) 0.38 kWh p/day 0.902 kWh p/day* 12
Steady-State 
Operation (43°C)
12 solutions 
satisfactory 1.505 kWh/day* 12
Steady-State
 Operation (16°C) 0.13 kWh p/day 0.323 kWh p/day* 7
Autonomy Time 2.63 Hours 1 Hour* 7
Freezing Capacity
 (2kg to -18°C) 15 Hours 11.2 Hours** 0
Freezing Capacity 
(0.5kg to -6°C) 12 Hours 12 Hours** 0
Undervoltage 14 solutions satisfactory N/A N/A
Overvoltage 17 solutions satisfactory N/A N/A
Freezing Capacity 
(2kg to -12°C) 16.7 Hours N/A N/A
Freezing Capacity 
(0.5kg to -13°C) 10.1 Hours N/A N/A
Table 9 - Average Laboratory Testing Results (Solutions vs. Baselines)
Expected Innovation Outcomes:
1. Generate technical and market innovation 
to develop off-grid appropriate refrigeration 
for developing countries.
2. Generate off-grid solutions that improved 
user satisfaction, remuneration, and 
well-being.
* Based on the baseline testing data provided by CLASP and internal calculations.
** 23 units were tested, however only nine units at -6C and four units at -18C were able to reach specified target 
temperatures. The other products failed to operate due to malfunction or stopped operating after initial tests. These 
baselines do not account for weighting the unit while testing freezing capacity.
*** See Table 3 on page 23 for description of tests.
42 43
71-76% of products outperformed the baseline testing in 
four tests: steady-state operation (10°C, 32°C, 43°C) and 
pull-down time.
8
 The steady-state operation test means that 
those products are consuming far less energy on average, 
making them highly energy efficient in different ambient 
temperatures and humidity conditions (from cold to neutral 
to hot environments). In particular, the 32°C test is the 
common condition to test for daily energy consumption, and, 
on average, it outperformed the baselines by 0.522 kWh p/
day. The pull-down test time of 1.05 hours confirms that these 
products are much more faster and efficient at cooling 
their contents. 
Individually, many of these solutions produced better results 
than those on the market through various innovative technical 
specifications. For example, the SunDanzer DCR165 unit 
used energy most efficiently as determined by daily energy 
consumption and the time required to achieve and maintain 
a target temperature, thereby winning the Energy Efficiency 
Innovation Prize (see page 31). The majority of nominated 
refrigerators were able to outperform the baseline tests, 
however five nominated products - Phocos (FR170, FR240), 
SunDanzer (DCR165), SimuSolar (DCR165E) and Palfridge 
(LC86) outperformed the five key tests for refrigerator units 
(steady-state, autonomy and pull-down). These products went 
beyond the baselines to produce high-quality, energy efficient, 
cooling efficient and autonomous solutions.
Though the competition spurred innovation in creating 
efficient off-grid solutions, results from the laboratory testing 
indicate that these solutions on average aren’t as low-cost 
as off-grid refrigerators currently on the market (CLASP 
baseline testing) with the average wholesale price per solution 
being $610.30, the average total retail price is $827.11 and 
the average total cost of production for these products is 
$2035.48. These prices and costs are still quite high, and their 
uptake is dependent upon meeting customer price points as 
discussed in Outcomes 5, 6, and 7. However, considering that 
this is an early instance of innovation in off-grid refrigeration 
technologies, innovators developed new solutions and 
wouldn’t necessarily have had the market impetus to further 
hone them if not for this competition.
Field testing provided more practical information on the 
products’ performance in a real-world context. Normal 
breakdowns and poor weather and the ways in which the 
products affect performance inform customer perceptions 
more than detailed laboratory test results. Of the 36 
refrigerators
9
 tested, 27 (75%) worked well for the entire 
duration of field testing, 5 refrigerators didn’t work from the 
start, and as field testing progressed, 4 products suffered 
from technical issues—meter breakdowns, failure of cooling 
components, gas refrigerant leakages as well as one solution 
being placed on the grid. When breakdowns occurred, 
because these refrigerators were tested in rural areas, 
technicians were not able to immediately repair them.10
44 45
Table 10 - Field Test Performance Measures
Category Average 
Daily Energy 
Consumption 
(kWh p/day)
Daily Energy 
Consumption 
(kWh p/day)
Declared 
Daily Energy 
Consumption 
(kWh p/day)
External 
Temperature (C) Humidity (%)
Small 
Refrigerator 0.31 0.53 0.17 26C 66
Small 
Refrigerator-freezer 0.65 0.57 0.35 28.5C 68.5
Medium 
Refrigerator 0.77 0.65 0.75 27.5C 60
Large 
Refrigerator 0.55 0.86 0.28 24C 49
Large 
Refrigerator-freezer 1.65 0.53 0.64 27C 62
Table 10 breaks down the product field testing performance 
by category type, daily energy consumption (average, daily 
and declared), and conditions tested in. The average daily 
energy consumption for all products was 0.69 kWh p/day 
to function in an average environment of 27°C with 63% 
humidity—the daily energy consumption is still relatively high 
to operate an off-grid refrigerator in the field, and represents 
an increase of 0.31 kWh p/day in comparison to the average 
daily energy consumption from laboratory testing. Field 
testing was invaluable because it revealed variations in device 
performance and energy consumption based on geographic 
conditions, refrigerator contents, and everyday use. Notably, 
three solutions (Basil DC170L, Palfridge LC86 and LC221) had 
a lower daily energy consumption in the field than what they 
originally stated, working better than they initially declared and 
performing better than advertised. 
It’s also important to recognize that the laboratory and field 
test methods themselves were innovative. Until the Global 
LEAP Awards Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition, there were no 
standardized or accepted means to test off-grid refrigerators 
for home and productive use. The development of these 
protocols allowed for comprehensive analyses of the solutions 
produced in this competition.
Outcome 2: Generate off-grid solutions that 
improved user satisfaction, remuneration, 
and well-being.
The field tests demonstrated that 75% of the competing 
refrigeration devices successfully functioned in off-grid 
environments. While 96% of field testers were at the very 
least happy with the off-grid refrigerators, and 100% found the 
products easy to use, many users wanted more cost-effective 
devices that had larger internal shelf-space to accommodate 
chilling more goods. 
CLASP, USAID, and E4I’s HCD research, benchmark, and 
baseline analyses allowed for a better, quantitative and 
qualitative understanding of off-grid refrigerators in a localized 
context. This research suggested different use cases for 
refrigerators, priority design elements and preferences vis-a￾vis volume, size, and average power consumption.
To create products that were simultaneously competitive 
and valued by customers, innovators incorporated innovative 
features into their refrigeration products. All finalists 
identified a variety of innovations that improved their product 
performance such as thicker insulation, highly efficient AC/
DC compressors, and sensors to control temperature. The 
nominees also utilized innovative features to reduce product 
costs such as sensor-less controls and using low cost, but 
high-quality, materials such as metal casings and house 
parts. Lastly, some finalists sought to improve usability and 
accessibility by using different door models, not including 
locks, ensuring product height and width allows people with 
low mobility to use the product, and incorporating pay-as-you￾go electronics into the systems’ solar module. 
The field test involved 36 field representatives each testing a 
nominee’s product. The vast majority (over 90%) had never 
owned a refrigerator before, and after the testing period, 
96% of field testers were either happy or very happy with the 
products, while 100% felt the products were easy to use and 
easy to open and close. Speaking to product design, 93% of 
field testers were either mostly or very satisfied, popularly 
noting that the “fridge cools contents very well and fast”, 
while others acknowledged “the compartment in the fridges 
provides many ways of using it” and “it’s spacious and can 
stock many items.” Field testers also offered some critiques 
of the products, some noted product-specific issues with 
46 47
temperature knobs, freezing temperature, capacity, and door 
design. The most common criticism was size; the majority 
of field testers noted customer demand for chilled goods 
exceeded their refrigeration devices’ capacity. Field testers 
wanted to buy more drinks to place in their fridge and found 
small and medium refrigerators’ capacity too limited (even 
field testers with larger products struggled to meet increasing 
sales). 
The finalists valued receiving field testing results. They felt the 
independent field tests built credibility for both the product 
performance and the respective organizations. Finalists felt 
that product field performance on details like the daily energy 
consumption and user feedback was critical to shaping the 
future performance or product design.
“We want to understand the valuable comments 
from the end user. It will give hints to us for future 
designs or modifications.” 
—Lotis, Metropolitan - Finalist
Specifically knowing what design features work and didn’t work 
informed finalists’ product development and allowed them 
to consider different contexts and use cases for their off-grid 
refrigerators. 
Finalists did state that the field test results report (see 
Appendix B for sample) provided limited information on both 
technical performance and user experience. Of the technical 
information, only a graph and daily energy consumption 
were provided with an additional file of the monitoring data. 
Finalists noted they would have appreciated additional tests, 
monitoring, or observations on autonomy or pull-down 
time. Finalists also noted that though understanding how 
their products were utilized was useful, the full user testing 
results were difficult to understand without some additional 
context such as geography or the environment where these 
refrigerators were placed, the way in which the product was 
used, what was stored in the refrigerators and the quantity 
of contents. While the technical information provided via the 
monitoring data has contributed to understanding how field 
testers used the refrigerators, finalists noted that 
it would have helped to have this information from the outset. 
Finally, since the majority of field testers had never owned 
or used a refrigerator before, it’s reasonable to presume 
their feedback is informed by a positive bias towards the 
products. The refrigerators offered many field testers an 
opportunity to use a new technology which could also benefit 
their business—it’s hard not to feel warmly under those 
circumstances. 
Walyetoi Fazali from Mbale found the product had 
limited space, but faced with growing demand, he 
bought baskets and filled them with cold water (from 
the fridge), alternating between cooling drinks in 
the refrigerator and basket to continuously provide 
chilled drinks for customers.
48 49
MOTIVATIONS # OF 
RESPONSES
The opportunity to win the competition
7
The opportunity to bring new and innovative 
products to market
6
The opportunity to win one of the innovation 
cash prizes
6
The potential to scale an existing product in a 
new global market
6
Learning from results of laboratory and/or 
field testing
6
The possibility of meeting new investors
5
The potential to a bring a product to the 
African market
5
The prestige and credibility of the Global LEAP 
brand
5
Applying the organization’s knowledge and 
skills for new purposes
3
The potential to bring a product to the 
Bangladeshi market 
3
The opportunity to learn from the experience 
of individuals and organizations involved in 
the competition 
3
Table 11 - Motivations for Finalists
Capabilities 
The capabilities section assesses the 
extent to which the Global LEAP Off-Grid 
Refrigerator Competition has brought new 
talent into the off-grid refrigeration sector 
and/or improved the skills and networks 
of existing innovators. “Global LEAP gives you credibility as a supplier 
of solutions for the off-grid sector, and provides 
exposure to a wider market.”
—Joseph Fernandez, Solageo - Finalist
Outcome 3: Mobilize talents to generate new 
ideas for off-grid refrigeration.
The competition marginally increased the number of new 
organizations working in off-grid refrigeration. Of the 28 
organizations that nominated products, 4 nominees had 
never worked in the off-grid refrigeration market before the 
competition.
Expected Capabilities Outcomes:
3. Mobilize talents to generate innovations 
for off-grid refrigeration.
4. Build B2B partnerships with distributors 
and investors to accelerate distribution.
5. Build consumers’ capacity (awareness 
to increase the value associated with solar 
systems—local businesses and final clients).
The competition attracted four new organizations to the off-grid 
refrigeration space. That said, the off-grid applicant sector is a 
niche market, and the majority of finalists (71.4%) had already been 
working in the sector for 4+ years as seen in Chart 3. 
Among the competition’s 57 nominations, 54% of applicants passed 
the pre-screening to become finalists. Most of these finalists listed 
“winning” as their motivation to enter the competition. Other 
motivations include an eagerness to win a cash prize, bring new/
innovative products to market, and the potential to scale an existing 
product in a new global market (see Table 11). All finalists had 
worked in the off-grid or refrigeration sector, but only one had 
worked in the Ugandan market, while three were new to the East 
African market. This competition acted as a pathway for finalists to 
enter different markets across sub-Saharan Africa. Additionally, 57% 
of finalists stated that the competition pushed them to go beyond 
their expertise, as they sought to find ways to make their solutions 
more energy efficient and innovative. In particular, some finalists 
highlighted that the competition guidance and judging criteria 
inspired them to create new and innovative off-grid refrigeration 
solutions. Of the applicants, 86% had never applied for donor 
funding, while 14% of teams had applied for USAID funding. Among 
the finalists, 82% had never applied to donor funding and only 
two finalists—SunDanzer and SimuSolar had applied to USAID for 
funding. Until the competition, donors had not made a meaningful 
investment in this space (with the notable exception of vaccine 
71.4%
14.3%
14.3%
Chart 3: How long has your organization 
been producing off-grid compatible 
refrigeration products?
4 + years
More than 12 months, 
but less than 2 years
0 - 6 months
50 51
refrigeration, which did and continues to receive sizeable 
donor funding). Private sector manufacturing companies in the 
domestic refrigeration sector rarely apply to USAID for donor 
funding. This competition allowed commercial enterprises 
to compete for financial and non-financial incentives, 
demonstrating the benefits that donors can offer the sector.
It is challenging to contextualize the involvement of women 
in the solutions’ development, because there is minimal 
information available in the broader market literature. Within 
the nominations themselves, 25% of applicants had 21-30% of 
women working on developing their solution. For finalists, the 
distribution of women working on the solutions was spread 
across the range as seen on Chart 4 (0-10%, 11-20%, etc.). 
Given the low gender diversity among nominees, compared 
to the high likelihood that women will be the primary users 
of refrigerators, it is vital that solutions take a gendered 
perspective when developing their solutions to ensure that 
they are user-centered and innovative. Fenix International 
reported that women bring in more clients than men even 
though women only purchase 20% of SHS.11 More gender 
diversity may enable an organization to perform well in the 
rural electrification market than those that are more male￾oriented.
0-10% 31-40%
11-20% 41-50%
21-30% 51-60%
Chart 4: Involvement of women in development of finalists’ solutions
What percentage do women constitude of the team that 
develop this product?
Outcome 4: Build B2B partnerships with 
distributors and investors to accelerate 
distribution.
The Global LEAP Awards had a thoughtful, if somewhat 
aggregated, means of connecting finalists to partnership 
opportunities. The 2017 Buyer’s Guide for Outstanding Off-Grid 
Refrigerators and the Off-Grid Appliance Bulk Procurement 
Incentives program are both opportunities to highlight qualifying 
off-grid refrigerators to potential partners and distributors, but 
they occurred much later in the competition process and do 
not represent dedicated, individualized connections between 
competitors and prospective partners. Thus, before they became 
eligible for those programs, 50% of finalists had taken initiative 
to develop their own discrete partnerships in order to further 
develop or produce their solution, with a further 25% were 
optimistic about building partnerships in the near future.
The off-grid sector needs effective and strategic partnerships 
in order to accelerate distribution of appropriate appliances, 
particularly refrigeration devices. During the initial stages of 
the competition, limited support was provided for partnership 
building. 88% of finalists highlighted that they mostly received 
support via introductions, subsidized product shipping costs, 
and the reports emanating from laboratory and field testing. 
While useful forms of acceleration, they do not necessarily 
result in partnerships.
Fifty percent of finalists said they had been able to develop 
partnerships either to further develop and/or produce their 
solution or to distribute and scale their product with major 
pay-as-you-go solar companies, existing customers, importers, 
manufacturers, and distributors. Another 25% of finalists 
were in the midst of partnership discussions and confident 
of building new and valuable partners in the near future. The 
competition emphasized that partnerships would be crucial to 
the longevity of finalists’ solutions. SureChill was collaborating 
with a SOGE partner, the Shell Foundation, to do field testing 
in Kenya and India to identify user cases in semi-commercial 
environments for their off-grid refrigerators. Finalists have also 
exploited the synergy between the the off-grid appliance and 
solar home system industry to build partnerships in hopes 
of successfully developing and scaling their products. Two of 
the finalists, SunDanzer and SimuSolar, were collaborating 
with one another in order to produce an off-grid refrigerator 
and distribute it, as SimuSolar’s pay-as-you-go operating 
system and SunDanzer’s wide distribution networks would be 
mutually beneficial for global sales. 
Some finalists noted that the competition could have 
incorporated support mechanisms for partnership building. 
The CLASP team frequently met with distributors and investors 
to promote the competition finalists. One finalist noted that 
52 53
they would have liked more notice of, and the opportunity to 
join, planned interactions with buyers and distributors (such 
as GOGLA events). The finalist would have liked to budget 
to join in these activities and envisioned that CLASP could 
potentially assist them in gaining direct access to contacts and 
explaining their products to potential partners. Regardless, 
the competition has connected finalists to a wider and more 
diverse network of potential collaborators, manufacturers, 
distributors and investors, as well giving them a platform and 
presence at many off-grid and solar events (see Outcome 8). 
Further, CLASP’s 2017 Buyer’s Guide for Outstanding Off-Grid 
Refrigerators displays all of the solutions with its rated product 
specifications, performance metrics based on laboratory 
testing and sales contact information, allowing key players in 
the market to see the quality of these solutions and potentially 
connect with finalists and winners.
Outcome 5: Build consumers capacity 
(awareness to increase the value associated 
with solar systems - local business and final 
clients).
The field test process dramatically and successfully increased 
customer perceptions of the value of off-grid appropriate 
refrigerators. Prior to the field test, Ugandans expressed a 
willingness to pay around $100 for an off-grid appropriate 
refrigerator. After experiencing the remunerative value of the 
test refrigerator, 84% of field testers would purchase the off-grid 
refrigerator they tested and were willing to pay between $200-
$500 for a refrigerator.
For this competition, it became imperative to improve 
consumers’ knowledge of off-grid refrigeration devices. Prior to 
the competition, USAID’s HCD research found that most people 
were aware of off-grid refrigerators and SHS, but not that they 
can be closely associated with each other. Potential users 
expressed disbelief this could exist, but were very interested. 
Despite the interest, when asked what they might refrigerate, 
some users proposed dried fish, tomatoes, and onions. As none 
of these foods require refrigeration, consumer education was 
needed. Field testing offered not only a chance to test with end￾users, but it also presented the opportunity to engage with a 
variety of users—domestic and commercial. 
Prior to field testing, the 36 field testers expressed different 
assumptions about solar/off-grid refrigerators, such as “it 
works efficiently without electricity,” “they work in areas 
without power,” “they work well,” “it cools drinks,” “it works like 
other fridges,” or they had “never heard about solar/off-grid 
refrigerators.” Some users had previously been connected to 
the grid, but dropped the service when they found that the 
costs associated with being on the grid—approximately 18 
cents per kWh—impacted their profits. 
After field testing, 84% of the users claimed they would 
purchase the off-grid refrigerator they had been testing. 
There is an interesting contrast in what value they imagined 
for the refrigerators prior to receipt compared to having and 
valuing the product in-person. All users assumed that they 
would somewhat gain from having a refrigerator, be it in sales 
or customers, but that process wasn’t initially clear to them. 
Earlier competition research indicated that users would only 
be willing to pay ~$100 for a refrigeration device, however, 
as Outcome 7 notes, after being placed with a refrigerator, 
the majority of field testers became willing to pay a range of 
between $200 and $500 for a refrigerator. Users’ willingness 
to pay more after they have used the products shows 
how perceptions change once they have the refrigerator. 
Nabukenya Resty told us, “before having the refrigerator, I was 
making losses on pineapple and passion fruit juices, but now 
no more losses as I can store the juices in the fridge for much 
longer” – the changes were immediate. Critically, users noted 
that having an off-grid refrigerator connected to a SHS allowed 
them to accumulate savings, which then facilitated their ability 
to buy more items to store in the off-grid refrigerator. 
During the field testing period, overall, the 36 field testers, in 
total, had a 268% increase in customers from 494 customers 
as a baseline to 1817 in total from the field testing period. 
They note that having the refrigerator immediately attracted 
customers. Users also stated the importance of the position 
of the refrigerator, it must always be toward the front of the 
shop, so that potential customers can see it, as a refrigerator is 
seen as a high-value appliance, and it acts as a tool to convert 
potential customers into actual customers.
Users also felt they understood solar and SHS much better 
once they were using the off-grid refrigerator. E4I, with Village 
Energy (a local Ugandan solar company that provided technical 
support), also taught users how to connect and disconnect 
refrigerators after activity and how to read the meter levels 
(understand what the red, amber, and green signals mean on 
some products).
Many field testers were also keen to follow what they perceived 
were rules for using the products, namely, only storing the 
Alfred, a butcher in Gulu, 
Uganda had never seen solar 
power nor refrigerators; he 
was scared to even ask for 
the price since he knew he 
couldn’t afford it. There needs 
to be a better marketing 
system in local areas.
54 5555
products they intended to sell. This misperception was 
understandable, as major beverage distributors often require 
that only their products be stored in the refrigerators they 
provide to businesses for free as part of the beverage sales 
program. In this case, however, the refrigeration devices were 
furnished by the competition and no such restrictions existed. 
Once field testers were reassured by the E4I field team that 
there were no restrictions on the refrigerators’ contents, users 
began to store meats, milk, fruit, and fish. This guidance should 
have been made clear to users before field testing started, as it 
may have affected the results. 
Some of the field tested products were not best suited 
for domestic and small and microenterprise use. SureChill 
entered a vaccine refrigerator into the competition. The 
features needed to be compliant for the vaccine cold chain 
actively compromised the product’s utility for small and 
microenterprises. For example, SureChill’s side lock and 
limited interior space (compared to the larger outside form) 
was not a fit for commercial or domestic use; the features 
made it difficult for users to store and sell sufficient items to 
justify the refrigerator’s costs.
Finally, while there was a marked increase in customer 
willingness to pay more for an off-grid appropriate refrigerator, 
this analysis did not not measure customer ability to pay or 
what sales volume would enable an ability to pay. While a 
subsequent section discusses financing options for refrigerator 
purchase, this analysis cannot claim if the willingness to pay 
$200-500 is feasible.12
The field testing period created value for users that 
extended beyond refrigerated products. Field testers saw 
other domestic and commercial uses for solar home systems 
—phone charging, lighting, opening a canteen, or starting 
a barbershop. In one community in Budaka, Mbale, four 
small and micro enterprises agreed to field test solar home 
systems and competing refrigerators. 
Not only did the refrigerators increase sales of cold drinks 
and perishable goods as hypothesized, the stores were able 
to power a light bulb and could stay open later, so overall 
store revenue increased. Itinerant food vendors positioned 
themselves near the stores with refrigeration and they also 
reported increased revenue as people bought more food 
over longer hours to accompany their cold drinks. 
Perhaps most surprisingly, the store owners became 
concerned that their valuable refrigerators would be 
stolen. They alone couldn’t guard the refrigerators, so they 
organized a neighborhood watch. Now, as a result of the 
neighborhood watch, the town as a whole is reporting fewer 
safety incidents. 
56 57
Ecosystem
The ecosystem category assesses the extent 
to which the Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator 
Competition has influenced the off-grid 
refrigeration sector in Uganda (and sub￾Saharan Africa), policy and, more generally, 
knowledge and awareness of off-grid 
refrigeration devices and solar home systems. 
“Change the perception of the solar-powered 
system— some people assume that a solar power 
system is worse than on-grid power because it’s 
coming from the sun. They tend to underestimate 
the quality and the power of SHS. They also 
assume that the products should be free or less 
expensive as it’s using solar power. In this sense, 
since using the solar power and its products are 
less expensive than the regular on-grid power 
products, they assume that on-grid products are 
better since they are more expensive.” 
- Interviewee, USAID HCD Research
Outcome 6: Grow a diverse market for efficient 
off-grid appliances to increase income, 
prosperity, and product quality.
While the field test process found that 95% of field testers had 
increased sales by using the off-grid refrigerators, most of the 
competing refrigerators were not produced at a size or a scale 
and available to small and microenterprises (SMEs) at a price that 
justifies their purchase. Significant changes are needed in both 
the volume and costs of producing appropriate refrigerators, as 
well as Uganda’s regulatory environment to foster the conditions 
to allow refrigerators to increase customer income and prosperity 
on a wider scale.
On the whole, the current demand for off-grid refrigeration 
solutions across developing countries (including Uganda) 
suggests low market penetration worldwide. Product prices 
range from $70 to $1,000. Interviewees recommended 
factoring in other appliances drawing power on a SHS and 
integrating a payment plan or financing options to overcome 
users’ income constraints. E4I found that the typical cost of a 
solar refrigerator ranged between approximately $600 and 
$15,000 (not including the costs of SHS and energy to power 
the products). 
For interested consumers, there are few refrigeration options 
that are available, accessible, and affordable. This competition 
hypothesized that off-grid refrigeration devices have a business 
use which may enable some individuals and communities to 
grow their income. Results from field testing found that this 
was the case, as 95% of users gained more sales by utilizing 
the off-grid refrigerators. In terms of monetary gain, business 
sales across the six-week field testing period increased by 
255.49%, and daily shop income also rose by 255.42%. Users, 
however, noted difficulty in meeting the exponential demand 
that arose from them having an off-grid refrigerator. With 
growing demand, their business expenditures grew as well 
(value of sales on cold drinks grew by 403% in order to meet 
a customer base that grew by 238%). In particular cases such 
as with Agnes Nansubuga, she had the only refrigerator in the 
entire village and therefore felt pressured to continually ensure 
her shop is fully stocked with drinks. As mentioned in Outcome 
5, field testers had to find ways of trying to meet that increase 
in demand. The growing demand, though difficult in terms 
of managing stock, was generally seen as very positive and 
enabled users to diversify and add new chilled or cold products 
to sell. 40% of users added popular product lines such as 
drinking water, passion fruit, passion fruit and pineapple juice, 
while a few also added milk and yogurt. A user noted, “these 
are new business lines which I started because of the fridge.” 
Some users also identified a growing market for popsicles and 
ice, but only a small subset of users were placed with a unit 
able to produce ice. This was due to both a limited number of 
combination refrigerator-freezer units and some refrigerators 
having restricted temperature setting options.
On the supply side, market projections for competition finalists 
are very low (in the low thousands per year), as the majority 
Expected Ecosystem Outcomes:
6. Grow a diverse market for efficient off-grid 
appliances to increase income, prosperity, 
and product quality.
7. Build the value of solar home systems to 
increase demand for unique systems and 
increase the value of existing SHS.
8. Raise market awareness on the existence 
of high quality off-grid products.
58 59
SMALL MEDIUM LARGE AVERAGE OF TYPE
REFRIGERATORS $459.90 $601.20 $820.56 $627.22
REFRIGERATORS￾FREEZER $316.80 N/A $1245 $780.90
Table 12 - Estimated Average Retail Price of Products by Category
of them note that the off-grid market is slow to adopt the 
new and innovative solutions. SolarNow noted policy issues 
affecting their ability to sell, as the Ugandan government 
introduced a tax on consumer electronics and mobile money 
transactions (affecting both customer financing and PAYGO). 
Although prize winners Palfridge notes that though they have 
been commercially producing their winning product, they 
have faced issues getting products to different Southern 
African countries. This is due to the small amount of stock they 
have, and they have not been able to produce them in larger 
quantities as it is too costly. All finalists acknowledged they 
struggled to sell their products. 
The issues are twofold: There are issues at the supply level 
as manufacturers and distributors negotiated to ensure the 
costs of production and distribution were not too high, then 
demand issues in being able to engage with customers to 
demonstrate feasibility and remunerative productive use. The 
competition brought attention to the sector, but it did not 
facilitate a transformation among atomized manufacturers, 
distributors, and consumers. 
In terms of pricing, the average retail price of the off-grid 
refrigerators is $827.16, Table 12 provides a further break 
down of the average prices according to the category type of 
refrigerators available. Given what the user cost-perception 
analysis reveals in Outcome 7, users speculate they would be 
willing and able to afford the small and medium refrigerators 
(between $200-$700).13 Based on some of the pain points 
identified during the field testing, a majority of field testers, 
however, wanted larger sized refrigerators to support their 
business needs, and only a fraction of users were willing to 
pay $700+. Table 13 also displays the performance and price 
of the competition and innovation prize winners, with all the 
products sitting on the customer price spectrum on $200 to 
$700. Consumers are also dependent on whether distributors 
include financing mechanisms—whether as separate 
refrigeration products or included as part of an SHS package. 
The choice in the product, package, and financing offerings 
will largely determine whether users will be able to access and 
afford them. 
Finalists have struggled to position their products and 
establish the price points for their products, as there is 
minimal available Ugandan market information. However, 
there are successful SHS companies that may be interested 
in strategic partnerships and it is recommended the 
finalists consider these type of opportunities to leverage 
successful distribution networks. While user willingness to 
pay could provide them with a target to meet, the high costs 
of production (on average $2,035.48), made it unlikely the 
current range of solutions would achieve a price point that 
consumers consider affordable. Lowering the appliances’ 
cost is contingent on working in collaboration with key market 
players—manufacturers, distributors, government agencies, 
and other stakeholders—to produce reliable products at 
scale, identify demand and distribute the products efficiently, 
and to lower customs and tariffs that prevent the easy 
import of appropriate devices. Finalists argued for better 
facilitation with market players and sought more invitations 
to events, meetings, and platforms for direct (or face-to-face) 
involvement with solar and off-grid actors to ensure they could 
pitch and position their solutions appropriately.
Outcome 7: Build value of SHS to increase 
demand for unique and existing SHS.
The field test process found that 74% of field testers would 
be willing to pay between $200 and $700 for an off-grid 
refrigerator bundled with SHS. While this represents a positive 
new association between off-grid appropriate refrigerators and 
solar home systems, it perhaps says as much about the known 
financing options available via solar home systems as it does 
a willingness to increase an existing SHSs value. There was no 
demonstrated increase in unique solar home systems as a result 
of the competition, but there were new off-grid refrigerator sales.
Off-grid appropriate refrigerators are one appliance type 
among many (lights, chargers, TVs, fans, clippers) which, with 
adaptation for efficiency, work via SHS. Building awareness 
that refrigerators can be solar home system-appropriate 
will help develop demand for new solar home systems and 
existing customers increasing the value of their SHS. 
60 61
Winner Type Category 
Type
Category 
Average 
Daily Energy 
Consumption
Daily 
Energy 
Consumption
Declared 
Daily Energy 
Consumption
Deviation from 
Declared Daily 
Energy Consumption
External 
Temperature 
(C)
Humidity (%)
Estimated 
Retail 
Price ($)
Metropolitan 
Elect 
MEFR-48C1
Competition Winner
Small 
refrigerator￾freezer
0.65 0.57 0.33
71.8% higher tested 
energy consumption 
than declared value
31 71 167.4
SunDanzer 
DCR50
“Overall Value” 
Innovation Prize 
Winner + 
Competition Winner
Small 
refrigerator 0.31 0.28 0.11
152.4% higher tested 
energy consumption 
than declared value
26 66 448.2
Fridge Star 
LC86
“Appropriate Design 
and User Experience”
Innovation Prize 
Winner
Medium 
refrigerator 0.77 0.22 0.39
42.4% lower energy 
consumption than 
declared value
24 49 601.2
Basil iFreez 
DC170L Competition Winner
Large 
refrigerator￾freezer
1.65 0.5 0.72
31% lower energy 
consumption than 
declared value
27 62 675
Fridge star
LC221 Competition Winner Large 
refrigerator 0.55 0.38 0.39
3% lower energy 
consumption than 
declared value
26 66 572.4
SunDanzer 
DCR165E
“Energy Efficiency” 
Innovation Prize 
Winner
Large 
refrigerator 0.55 0.34 0.14
139.5% higher tested 
energy consumption 
than declared value
24 49 718.2
Table 13 - Performance vs. Price of Competition and Innovation Prize Winners The research also addressed the perceived value of SHS 
and solar power. During the field testing, field research was 
conducted with 12 of the 36 field testers. The twelve users 
provided feedback on their experiences using the off-grid 
refrigerator and the value of SHS. All of the field testers 
interviewed had varying degrees of knowledge about solar 
products and of refrigerators. The perception of solar power 
and SHSs is that “it is cheaper, once you have it you save” 
and “it serves all the time, once you get it, you won’t lose 
power.” Users also associated safety with SHS, based on 
past experiences fearing faulty wiring with AC/grid power 
could cause a fire. Testers also felt reassured that SHS wasn’t 
susceptible to electrical shocks. Finally, field testers valued that 
solar power produces cleaner, safer energy than wax candles 
or kerosene, which smoke and can be unsafe. 
Rashida Nasungo from Bufombo, Mbale said that once she 
told her friends about the refrigerator and how great it was, 
her friends wanted more off-grid appropriate appliances. 
Her friends wanted solar and off-grid appropriate appliances 
because they doubted the national grid would arrive in their 
communities in the near future and even once it did, they 
doubted their ability to afford it. 
Outcome 8: Raising market awareness of 
existence of high quality off-grid products
The competition made a mixed contribution to market awareness 
of available off-grid appropriate refrigeration devices. While 
everyday Ugandans may not demonstrate brand awareness of 
most available, off-grid appropriate refrigerators, distributors are 
now aware of the 17 high quality off-grid refrigerators available 
on the market via the 2017 Buyer’s Guide for Outstanding Off￾Grid Refrigerators and the ten refrigerators participating in the 
Off-Grid Appliance Procurement Incentives Programme.
The Global LEAP Awards Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition 
sought to improve market awareness off-grid appropriate 
refrigerators through multiple modalities: Field testing, the Off￾Grid Applicance Procurement Incentives Programme, and via 
the competition itself.
Awareness of off-grid refrigerators and SHS was very low, and 
Lighting Africa found that brand awareness was extremely low 
in Central and Western Uganda. 83% and 86% of people could 
not recognize SHS brands or companies, highlighting the low 
level of market penetration.14 Among field testers, most only 
knew of only a few solar companies—SolarConnect and Village 
Energy. Across the field testing sites, brand penetration was 
low. Perhaps this can be attributed to the costs associated 
with marketing and expanding into rural areas. 
62 63
Relatedly, only SolarNow had brand recognition, mainly in 
Northern and Eastern regions of Uganda at 34% and 38%. 
SolarNow is the only finalist operating in Uganda providing 
small (35L) and large (112L) off-grid refrigerators, and they 
have reported issues in reaching rural areas in Uganda. The 
expenses associated with trying to target rural communities 
are such that strategically it makes more sense for them to 
target cities to grow their customer base.
Table 14 compares the off-grid refrigerator markets in several 
developing countries. In particular, Uganda has extremely low 
market penetration and refrigerator prices vary across the 
largest range—a finding supported by the field testing results 
which have the same range (see Outcome 5, 6, and 7).
There was a lack of awareness of not only solar home system 
companies and off-grid appliance companies, but there was also 
limited customer linkages between them. That is, customers 
did not readily connect off-grid appropriate appliances and 
appliance distributors with how they may relate to solar home 
systems and their plans. Following testing, the field testers 
demonstrated improved understanding of the relationship 
between off-grid products and solar systems, with many wanting 
to buy additional appliances from phone chargers to TVs. 
Nonetheless, brand recognition is still low and users are not 
aware of which companies provide high-quality products.
The Global LEAP Awards Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition 
sought to improve market awareness at multiple 
levels. Moving from Uganda, to an ecosystem level, the 
competition supported field testing 17 high-quality off￾grid refrigeration products, now available on the market, of 
which 16 participated in the Global LEAP Off-Grid Appliance 
Procurement Incentives Programme. Solar manufacturers 
and distributors regularly search for new innovations at cost￾effective prices. UltraTec, a Ugandan based solar supplier and 
distributor which supplies customers ranging from restaurants 
to the agricultural cold chain, uses the Global LEAP Off￾Market 
Penetration
Refrigeration 
Capacity (L)
Price 
Range ($)
Bangladesh Very low 60-80 300-500
India Low 45-55 70-625
Kenya Very low 50-55 -300
Nigeria Low to medium 50-55 -300
Uganda Extremely low 50-80* 200-1000*
Table 14 - Developing Countries Off-Grid Market15
Grid Appliance Procurement Incentives Programme. In an 
interview, UltraTec noted how valuable the competition has 
been in discovering new and innovative off-grid refrigerators 
in the different product categories. UltraTec posited that the 
competition’s off-grid refrigerators could provide more energy￾efficient systems for their clients to reduce milk spoilage, 
particularly from rural to urban areas.
In addition to the field testing and Off-Grid Applicance 
Procurement Incentives Programme, the Global LEAP Awards 
Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition’s communications and 
outreach tactics also sought to improve broader market 
awareness of off-grid refrigeration. Global LEAP adapted its 
communications campaign to publicize the announcement of 
the Innovation Prizes, the competition’s winners and finalists, 
and the award-winning, high-quality products. Ultimately, 85% 
of finalists felt that Global LEAP offered their off-grid products 
and organizations credibility in the off-grid market that 
elevated their products to investors and customers. 
The competition also leveraged industry events and 
conferences to promote the competition, its finalists, and 
winners. The competition was launched at the Global 
Entrepreneurship Summit in September 2016. The finalists, 
winners, and the efficiency and value innovation prize 
winners were announced at the Global Off-Grid Solar Forum 
and Expo hosted by GOGLA in Hong Kong in January 2018. 
The Forum and Expo event was attended by seven finalists 
including the winners, and helped them build partnerships 
and network with stakeholders. Finalists were also able to 
demonstrate their solutions and network with distributors and 
manufacturers.16 The appropriate design and user experience 
innovation prize was announced at Unlocking Solar Capital 
event hosted by GOGLA and SolarPlaza in November 2018. 
Though no competitors attended, Global LEAP promoted 
the winner of the prize, Palfridge, to industry investors and 
distributors.
64 65
Value for 
Money
Value for money assessments seek to answer whether the 
competition provided a return on its investment. Due to the 
aforementioned delays in the competition, there was a shorter 
than anticipated amount of time to compile final information 
and conduct this analysis. In order to complete a meaningful 
value for money calculation, the following information is 
needed:
• All financial information broken down in a consistent way 
to correlate the types of activities undertaken (i.e., events, 
communications outputs, materials produced). This would 
be required from all partners, and should equal the total 
operational budget.
• If possible, any in-kind contributions that were made or 
could be assigned, and then, 
• A breakdown of the activities undertaken throughout the 
competition and the number of times that 
activity occurred. 
With this information, it would be possible to calculate the 
operational efficiency of the competition, by breaking down 
the number of activities conducted and the cost associated 
with those activities across the competition. 
Operational efficiency is equal to:
• Total operational cost / no. of activity carried out 
= cost per activity
• (Activity/ months) x cost of activity = total value per months 
– predicted cost per months = Efficiency
We were, however, able to calculate a basic level of 
programmatic ROI of the Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator 
Competition, as it maps out the extent to which the outcomes 
have been achieved relative to the program costs. This only 
presents a cost per outcome and does not take into account 
the more detailed level of analysis which requires a more 
granular level of budget breakdown. The calculation is as 
follows:
Total ROI: Total program costs to impact metrics = Total 
program cost / 8 outcomes = cost per outcome x no. of 
outcomes in impact category = cost per category vs results 
and progression on all impact metrics (progression are results 
vs expectations) Market and beneficiaries proxy = progression 
x time. Forecast (- drop out %) = market impact vs beneficiaries 
potential.
The total program cost is $1,893,049.1517 which is equal to 
an average cost of $236,631.14 cost per outcome (total 
program cost/# of outcomes). In Table 15, we provide a list 
of the level of investment for each impact category (outcome 
investment x # of outcomes in the category) and for each 
category it assesses the quantitative results which are possible 
to observe so far. It is difficult to tell if this level of impact 
would have been achieved under normal market conditions 
with this timeframe, primarily due to there being insufficient 
research, funding, and a lack of programs supporting the 
sector. However, this does provide a benchmark for future 
programs, funding streams and competitions in the off-grid 
refrigeration sector as to the level of impact that can be 
achieved within a certain timeframe.
To look at the ROI for each impact area, the budget 
has been broken down to reflect the proportion of budget that 
correlates most appropriately to those particular indicators.
Innovation - $473,262.29 / 3 indicators = Average 
$157,754 per indicator
To properly assess the ROI, comparative assessments need to 
be made against:
• The number of new innovations introduced to the 
market and associated R&D costs which might have 
been incurred under normal market circumstances 
for their development
• The number of units tested in the field and the 
comparative value of equivalent testing time under regular 
conditions of testing
• Social value attributed to satisfaction of use from the field 
testers
Capabilities - $709,893.43 / 4 indicators= Average 
$177,473.36 per indicator
Proportional calculations can be assigned against:
• The anticipated number of nominations versus the 
received number of nominations
• The number of new innovators that entered the field due 
to the competition
• The number and nature of the new partnerships and the 
value of any additional investment, be it financial or in kind
• Proportion of users that express an increase in knowledge 
due to the competition and the type of knowledge they 
have attained which can be quantified against training 
values in these areas; also the intrinsic learning values 
66 67
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR AS IMPACT BASE MAIN RESULTS EXPECTED RESULTS ACHIEVED VALUE
Innovation
Investment of $473,262.29
Performance of products compared to market Most finalists will outperform the baseline 
refrigerators
12 to 13 finalist off-grid refrigerators outperformed current off-grid refrigerators in the market in four 
major tests (steady-state operation [10C, 32C, 43C] and pull-down time) Achieved
Performance of products in field Products will work in the field 27 products worked in the field with the average daily energy consumption being 0.69 kWh p/day. 3 
performed better than expected Achieved
User satisfaction Users will be satisfied with products 96% of field testers were at the very least happy with the off-grid refrigerators, and a further 100% 
overall found the product easy to use Achieved
Capabilities
Investment of $709,893.43
# of nominations 20 nominations 57 nominations Achieved
% of new talents Attract new talents to the off-grid refrigeration 
space 4 nominees were new to the off-grid refrigeration space Achieved
# of new partnerships Generate new partnerships 50% of finalists created new partnerships. 25% are optimistic about creating partnerships in near future Achieved
% off-grid solar knowledge Users will improve off-grid solar knowledge 33% of users better understood off-grid refrigerators and SHS Neutral
Ecosystem
Investment of $709,893.43
% improvement in user business sales vs expenditure Users will improve their business sales 95% of field testers increased their sales, overall sales across the testing period increased by 255.49% Achieved
Market projections of finalists and winners Finalists and winners will have strong sales 
projections
Sales for finalists and winners ranged from zero to in the low thousands, with prize winners reporting 
increases from the previous year’s orders Negative
Cost perception analysis Calculate the price points of users The majority of users would pay $200 to $500 in cash by installments paying $10-20 per month over a 
period of 1 to 3 years for an off-grid refrigerator with SHS Achieved
# of brands known to provide high quality off-grid products The products produced in this competition will 
be of high-quality 17 high-quality off-grid refrigerators were produced by this competition and are on the market Achieved
Ecosystem - $709,893.43 / 4 indicators = Average 
$177,473.36 per indicator
The most challenging of areas to calculate ROI as should be 
based on broader projects and attribution is more complex 
to assign. However, some premise for the calculations:
• Increased sales attributed to new products in the field 
testing process
• Market projections need to be proxied against a specific 
timeframe under new commercial conditions
• Based on the market projects of how many units are 
anticipated to be sold at the price points that users are 
willing to pay and the duration of time for payments ($200 
to $500 in cash by installments paying $10-20 per month 
over a period of 1 to 3 years for an off-grid refrigerator 
with SHS)
• Attributional value of facilitating the introduction of 17 
new products on the market 
To determine the value for money of the competition most 
effectively, these ROI calculations should be combined with 
the operational budget values derived from the activity 
calculations to provide a comprehensive analysis of the value 
that the competition presents against what normal market 
parameters would have achieved within the same timeframe.
Table 15 - Total Program Costs to Impact Metrics
68 69
Section 3 
Lessons 
Learned
Learnings 
The 2016-2017 Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator 
Competition sought to incentivize technical 
innovation, support innovators, and influence 
the broader ecosystem about the value of 
off-grid-appropriate refrigeration devices and 
SHS. This section focuses on the competition’s 
key lessons learned, namely, the use of mixed 
methods research, the competition’s incentives, 
dynamic partnerships, and evaluating perceived 
and actual market impact of the competition 
and its solutions. The section will also address 
the challenges the competition confronted, as 
well as offer practical suggestions to improve 
future competitions.
Research - Mixed Methods
Using mixed methods research in the competition scoping 
and design process enabled the prize team to develop 
a multifaceted understanding of the competitors and 
market. The mixed method approach to the Global Off-Grid 
Refrigerator Competition provided an evidence base to build 
strong benchmark and baseline indicators and support for the 
competition.
• DAI, CLASP, and USAID conducted a scoping process 
involving key informant interviews, desk research, and 
facilitated discussions at conferences which contributed to 
the prize design and incentives.
• DAI and CLASP concurrently ran a survey and request for 
information process to solicit stakeholder feedback on 
existing refrigeration products, customer needs, and key 
elements of the proposed competition design.
• CLASP conducted a baseline testing analysis using 36 
off-grid appropriate refrigerators to understand what an 
innovative solution might look like. This process became 
the foundation of the laboratory test method. While the 
laboratory test method drew from other sources (such 
as testing for vaccine refrigerators), this was the first test 
method exclusively created for testing off-grid refrigerators 
for domestic and SME use.
• Additionally, CLASP shaped the eligibility criteria and 
guidance through the baseline testing as they had 
to consider ‘what innovation looked like in off-grid 
refrigerators’, which offered innovators help in developing 
their solutions.
• E4I conducted a study on 173 micro-enterprises in Uganda 
using on-grid refrigerators to understand the use and 
application of off-grid refrigeration, providing a benchmark.
• USAID supported HCD research to gain a rich qualitative 
understanding to the Ugandan context. The research 
identified items people want to cool, ideal run time and 
size of refrigerators, price point, and the most preferred 
features.
• E4I and CLASP conducted field testing in Uganda, and 
created a specific field-test method to not only capture the 
technical information, but also the more meaningful context￾specific information - the first of its kind. 
• In addition to standard qualitative features (e.g. pull-down 
time), qualitative judging enabled more focus on the end￾user and the way in which the products would be utilized, 
meaning that elements of design and usability, innovative 
features and functions, and truth in advertising (products 
tested performance versus specified/claimed performance) 
were investigated as well.
These activities ensured the competition had a multifaceted 
understanding of existing off-grid technologies, customer, 
distributor, and solar home system demand and constraints, and 
This section provides competition lessons 
learned from the research, design, 
implementation, and evaluation phases, 
suggested actions that can be taken to improve 
future competitions in this sector, and other 
market-shaping activities. 
70 71
the off-grid refrigeration market in Uganda. The thorough mixed 
methods approach created a solid foundation for the program 
design and implementation.
Incentives - Design
The competition offered both financial and non-financial 
incentives to stimulate innovation. Efforts to identify 
compelling incentives began during the research and 
design phase, in hopes of addressing both competitors’ 
motivations to apply and to use incentives strategically 
to fill gaps in the market. The competition’s incentives 
included:
Cash Prizes helped the competition attract both innovators 
known to the off-grid refrigeration space, as well as to motivate 
new actors to enter this space. The majority of finalists were 
motivated by the opportunity to win one of the innovation 
cash purses. Compared to traditional grant or procurement 
programs, innovation inducement prizes often attract mass 
supplier interest more quickly, easily and efficiently. In the 
off-grid refrigeration market, an area that is technology and 
innovation-driven, cash purses incentivized innovators to 
create new solutions. When asked, all finalists said they found 
the $200,000 Innovation Prizes sufficient for what was being 
asked of them in the competition. Some finalists noted that 
they would have liked to see more prizes available (e.g. five 
prizes worth $100,000) to reflect the work that went into 
creating their solutions and to have more opportunities to 
signal to the market that their products demonstrated “prize￾winning” value. 
Testing was an important incentive for finalists; 100% 
of respondents appreciated the testing elements of 
the competition. Under normal circumstances, product 
developers and manufacturers have to pay for testing costs 
themselves—but the competition subsidized these expenses 
to remove barriers to entry. Even if refrigeration developers 
or manufacturers were to pay for testing, as noted earlier 
in the report, until the Global LEAP awards, there was no 
standard laboratory or field testing protocol for off-grid 
appropriate refrigerators. The Global LEAP testing process 
filled a needed gap by introducing a standardized process. 
Moreover, the laboratory test design allowed for a robust, 
technical assessment of the refrigerators, while still recognizing 
critical qualitative elements. The test results were captured 
in an extensive report for innovators to use and improve 
their solutions. The Global LEAP Awards also designed and 
sponsored field testing. Field testing provided innovators with 
a real understanding of how their solution was received and 
utilized by customers. This customer feedback was relayed 
to competitors. All finalists who participated in field testing 
were generally satisfied with the results. They did, however, 
note (as discussed at length in Outcome 1) that they would 
have appreciated more detailed field reports. Competitors 
would have liked more information on their product’s technical 
performance, the environmental conditions that their solutions 
were placed in, and user price points and feedback. Instead, the 
field testing report provided a high-level of field performance 
and user response. The Global LEAP field test process was 
a first step, but not a substitute for a longer, more detailed 
field test process that logs user performance and geographic 
information in service of honing solutions to meet end-user 
needs.
Global LEAP reputation was another reason why innovators 
applied for the competition. Finalists recognized that their 
organizations would gain brand exposure through Global 
LEAP’s network and partners. Additionally, the Global LEAP 
imprimatur is the quality standard for off-grid appliances: 
throughout the competition, all finalists consistently noted 
that they valued the prestige afforded to them as Global LEAP 
finalists and winners. 
Complementing the prizes, the Global LEAP Off-Grid 
Appliance Procurement Incentives Programme (RBF) 
aimed to accelerate the uptake of off-grid solar technologies 
such as solar home systems through the development of a 
complementary market for high-quality and energy efficient 
off-grid refrigerators (please see Market Impact on page 
74 for further details). By coordinating purchases in bulk, 
this program reduces the costs of appliances by enabling 
manufacturers to produce them at scale and helps collectivize 
resource-intensive challenges such as shipping and customs. 
Qualifying to participate in this program reduced some of the 
friction competitors would have experienced entering weak 
markets alone. 
72 73
Though all these incentives can easily work in isolation, the 
key is that they worked in combination with one another to 
incentivize, motivate, attract, support, and develop innovators 
and their off-grid refrigeration products.
Dynamic Partnerships - 
Implementation “The partnerships [...] ended up yielding 
unbelievable results...the other things that the 
partners brought to the table is what made it so 
successful, without question.”
- Jeff Stottlemyer, CLASP - Partner
Partnerships were integral to the Global LEAP Off-Grid 
Refrigerator Competition. The competition had multiple 
partners: three major agencies including USAID (and the 
Power Africa US Government initiative), DOE, and UK aid/I2I; 
three implementing partner organizations—CLASP, DAI, and 
E4I; and two evaluation teams in Nesta and IMC.
A large partnership has its pros and cons. The donor 
coordination between USAID, DOE, and UK aid efficiently 
pooled resources and set an agenda around a topic of 
common interest. Unfortunately, however, there was also 
a learning curve regarding the process and speed of funds 
transfers between USAID/DOE/CLASP, which created delays 
in shipping the products for laboratory testing, and, in turn, 
delayed the competition timeline.18 Fortunately, as a function 
of the partnership, when the delays became untenable, 
UK aid/I2I stepped in to support shipping of solutions for 
laboratory testing (and was later “reimbursed” by USAID). 
This case is a prime example of what the partners mentioned as 
‘pinch points’ at various stages of the competition. These ‘pinch 
points’ vary from issues in providing funds in a timely manner, to 
a complicated clearance process, to delays in the laboratory and 
field tests due to challenges with importing products into the 
country. Ultimately, however, the negatives were outweighed 
by the positives. The partners cited the collective skills and 
resources dedicated to deliver this program as contributing to 
positive outcomes measured in the innovation, capabilities and 
the ecosystem categories.
In a focus group, after the first innovation prizes were 
awarded, partners acknowledged that each organization 
brought something unique to the table. For example, CLASP 
has extensive expertise of working in the off-grid space, 
and were able to utilize their skills and knowledge for the 
competition. E4I are experts in field testing and created the 
first test protocol for off-grid refrigerators. DAI was able to 
provide insight and knowledge with regard to prize design 
and brought expertise through their management of various 
innovation competitions. The partners attested that resulting 
competition design and implementation plan representing 
their collective expertise was better than the sum of its parts. 
From a donor perspective, this competition called attention to 
a new donor role in signalling and stimulating markets. Katrina 
Pielli of Power Africa called the competition “an example of an 
appropriate role for donors—recognizing what markets need 
when private sector is not present, and thinking about how 
we push to help develop the markets.” Going forward, donors 
should keep in mind this work is most successful when donors 
are engaged, collaborative, and mindfully stimulate—rather 
than distort—markets.
In addition to E4I, CLASP, and DAI’s competition’s design 
and implementation support, the Global LEAP Awards also 
leveraged support from other partners, namely, Energising 
Development (EnDev) and Power Africa to fund the Off-Grid 
Appliance Procurement Incentives Programme and create 
a clear path to market for finalists’ solutions. By collectively 
pooling financing for various competition activities, the 
Global LEAP Awards were able to offer an array of incentives 
which have assisted innovators in bringing their solutions to 
emerging markets.
74 75
Market Impact - Evaluation “I just had no idea of these players, this market...I 
had [kind of] heard things about it. But I’m so glad 
I am here meeting the right people who potentially 
need thousands and tens of thousands of these 
fridges.” —David Bergeron, SunDanzer - Overall Value and Energy 
Efficiency Innovation Prizes Winner
A key part of this competition was to spur market impact 
at the innovation and wider ecosystem level. Being able to 
attribute market impact to the competition helps assess the 
competition’s value.
Global LEAP positioned competition finalists and winners the 
market in two distinct ways. First, Global LEAP published the 
2017 Buyer’s Guide for Outstanding Off-Grid Refrigerators. 
The guide serves as a procurement tool for off-grid solar 
companies and off-grid solar product distributors. The 
document provides market intelligence to interested 
stakeholders and alerts them to high quality, vetted, tested 
products. This was a key tool in ensuring finalists got exposure 
to a wider pool of players in the off-grid solar ecosystem. 
Another incentive to finalists and winners is the 
aforementioned RBF Global LEAP Off-Grid Appliance 
Procurement Incentives Programme. The RBF program 
sought to encourage off-grid appliance suppliers and solar 
distributors to place bulk orders of selected finalist appliances 
and market them to their customers. In return, Global LEAP 
offered an incentive structure that covered a percentage of 
the FOB (Free on Board/Shipping) price for eligible products. 
RBF sought to further reduce barriers to market participation 
as well as foster productive long-term business relationships. 
Ten of the 17 qualifying finalists participated and benefited 
from market facilitation between manufacturers and 
distributors and investors. In fact, the program received three 
confirmed orders from companies operating in East Africa to 
purchase 1,025 highly energy-efficient, off-grid appropriate 
refrigerators. These orders represent some of the world’s first 
large-scale, off-grid refrigerator procurements.
Winners and finalists also have access to the Efficiency for 
Access Coalition and Acumen investor network which supports 
debt and equity investors to gain market intelligence, builds an 
investable pipeline, and allows investors to ask more technical 
questions about specific off-grid appropriate technologies 
during their due diligence. This is critical considering the role 
that impact investing plays in the solar and off-grid market, as 
potential investors are seeking to invest in technologies and 
organizations with proven results. The Efficiency for Access 
and Acumen network provides a platform that immediately 
connects investors with productive use companies such as the 
competition finalists and winners. This network offers winners 
and finalists an immediate opportunity to gauge investors’ 
perspectives on investment, and pending mutual interest, is 
a source of necessary capital to scale solutions to reach low￾income users, grow core operations, and finance inventory.
In sum, the competition signaled to the market that off-grid 
refrigeration worth additional investments from innovators, 
distributors, manufacturers, solar companies, governments, 
and international institutions. Collectively, they have the 
potential to unlock a substantial market in sub-Saharan Africa. 
76 77
Reach: Despite the competition’s 
aspirations of inspiring appropriate, locally￾designed technologies for sub-Saharan 
Africa, the competition struggled to deliver. 
Most competitors came from the United 
States, United Kingdom, or China and most 
devices had price points that exceeded 
customer willingness to pay.
New Technical Assistance: The 
competition can continue to experiment 
with new forms of technical assistance 
to competitors such enterprise support, 
market analyses, or more individualized 
forms advisory services.
Stronger Methodologies: The competition 
created new and innovative laboratory and 
field test methods. Future rounds of the 
competition should draw on the ensuing 
lessons learned continue to improve on 
them.
Communications: Some finalists 
stated that the competition failed to 
relay important information, such as the 
opportunity to participate in the GOGLA 
Off-Grid Solar Forum and Expo or detailed 
testing results and feedback in a timely 
manner.
Timing: The delays associated with funds 
transfers, shipping, testing, and customs 
impacted the competition length and what 
could be measured. The competition was 
also not always forthcoming about the 
length and reasons for delays causing 
confusion among competitors.
Ongoing Opportunities for Innovation: 
While the competition incentivized the 
development of innovative, new off-grid 
refrigeration solutions, field test feedback 
demonstrated room for additional 
innovation—particularly to increase device 
size, lower costs, and other geographies with 
different climate characteristics.
Opportunities Challenges
Challenges and 
Opportunities 
The competition experienced many challenges, especially 
reach, communications to participants, and timing. The 
competition process also exposed several key opportunities 
which could allow the off-grid refrigeration market to prosper, 
namely, new technical assistance, stronger methodologies, 
and ongoing opportunities for innovation.
Recommendations
Future iterations of the competition may be improved by 
instituting the following recommendations:
• Deliberately facilitate additional exchanges between 
innovators and off-grid/solar stakeholders—users, 
local solar companies, local and global distributors, and 
investors so that innovators might respond to their needs.
• Conduct extended field testing. Although the competition 
initially envisaged twelve weeks of field testing, this became 
untenable under the competition’s timeline. In future 
iterations of the competition, a minimum of twelve weeks 
of field testing will make the ensuing data more reliable.
• Relay more detailed data from field testing to 
competitors. Competitors requested additional data on 
field test environmental conditions, user behaviors and 
user perspectives so they might incorporate those insights 
in their next iteration of the products. 
• Consider field testing with households. Field testing with 
households would help better understand the factors 
associated with domestic and productive uses and can 
add to a body of knowledge on household refrigeration in 
developing country contexts. 
• Develop and maintain clearer communication channels 
between partners and competition stakeholders. Finalists 
mentioned feeling unaware of competition developments. 
Judges were, at times, difficult to reach. Consider 
creating an online forum via Slack or Google to ensure all 
participants, from finalists to judges, are well aware of the 
competition process, as well as any news and updates.
• Clarify roles. Consider being more explicit about partners’ 
roles at the start of the competition to determine roles, 
responsibilities, and goals, but ensure capacity for flexibility 
and overlap, if another dynamic partnership is formed.
• Require a business plan. Consider requesting a business 
plan from competitors that explains the solution in 
78 79
comprehensive detail, how and why the solution is 
innovative, what potential plans to market and scale 
are, what knowledge they have of users and developing 
contexts, and so forth. This business plan could be 
evaluated by judges as part of the decision-making 
process for the competition and innovation prize awards. 
It also provides a better understanding of innovators’ 
perspectives on potential use cases of their solutions. 
• Level the playing field. Explore ways to support innovators 
working in developing country contexts so they are able 
to compete alongside already established organizations 
from developed countries. The shipping and testing 
subsidies were a significant step toward lowering barriers 
to compete, but other considerations such as accepting 
applications in languages other than English or lowering 
warehousing requirements would enable more early stage 
and developing country competitors to compete. 
• Explore new tactics to improve innovator participation in 
evaluation activities. To mitigate low response rates from 
finalists to participate in interviews and surveys, consider 
either strategically pairing interviews and surveys with key 
milestones such as laboratory test shipping forms or field 
test results or offering incentives to finalists to participate. 
• Invest in the resources, both with respect to technology 
and staff, to continue to measure and monitor
:
• The refrigeration devices’ technical performance in 
the field, and 
• Evaluate the price points for refrigeration devices, 
relative to energy consumption and remuneration 
to determine both the right price for the products 
as well as when average owners can recoup their 
investment in them.
• Consider placing more emphasis on the competition 
being a means to encourage adoption of SHS. If 
innovators see a clear overarching goal in not just 
supplying off-grid refrigerators to end-users in developing 
contexts, but also see the competition is about building 
value and trust in SHS and solar, their innovations will 
reflect that. 
Conclusion
Many stakeholders are avidly monitoring the off-grid 
appliance sector, and as a shortcut, they have been following 
the market signaling and shaping activities of the Global LEAP 
competitions. The Global LEAP competition has spurred 
and signaled to the market energy efficient and high quality 
lights, fans, TVs and, for the first time in 2016-2017, off-grid 
refrigerators. This is vital information for market stakeholders 
as they respond to the findings from a recent Efficiency 
for Access Coalition survey on off-grid appliances.19 The 
survey found that demand for refrigerators continues to 
grow and represents a huge commercial opportunity. The 
survey featured five productive use cases for refrigerators: 
Household refrigerators, refrigerators/freezer units for 
commercial use, agricultural cold chain technologies, milk 
chilling units, and vaccine refrigerators. These use cases were 
consistently cited as both sources of potential demand and 
potential positive impact on socioeconomic development 
and poverty reduction. The diversity of productive use 
opportunities may also attract more innovators, distributors, 
manufacturers, investors, governments, and international 
organizations to develop the off-grid refrigerator market, 
through product research, development and manufacturing, 
policy reform, financial and capital mechanisms, and 
distribution network models. 
In response to the domestic and SME use case, this 
competition has produced new and innovative off-grid 
refrigeration devices that offer better energy efficiency, 
cooling efficiency, and autonomy than those previously 
active in the market. In addition, the finalists and winners 
have adopted high quality innovative designs to meet 
users’ needs. That said, while the competition has focused 
attention, innovation, time, money, and resources in the 
space, the Global LEAP Off-Grid Refrigerator Competition 
alone cannot achieve systemic change. More needs to be 
done at all levels—further investment, donor-development 
projects, pilot grant funding, technical assistance, and other 
open innovation competitions—to transform the off-grid 
refrigeration market to ensure access and affordability to 
low-income users.
While this competition cannot claim to have built a robust 
off-grid refrigerator market in sub-Saharan Africa, it has 
indelibly shaped the market by creating formally established 
tests and benchmarks to guide future activities in the off￾grid refrigeration sector. We look forward to seeing both 
individual products’ performance in the market as well as 
the competition’s broader ecosystem impacts reverberate 
through this dynamic sector. 
80 81
5. References 
1. Page 9 - Following changes in 2016 and 2017, the Department of Energy’s 
participation became limited to coordination via Power Africa.
2. Page 10 - http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/102741561002617590/text/
Concept-Project-Information-Document-PID-Uganda-Energy-Access-Scale-up-Project￾EASP-P166685.txt
3. Page 10 - One of the findings from the field testing process is that, in Uganda, stores 
that have sufficient foot traffic to sustain an off-grid refrigerator are rare. Most of 
the stores that have the foot traffic to afford the costs of energy and a refrigeration 
device are on the grid or on the verge of being connected to the grid. Many off-grid 
stores identified for field testing struggled to have sufficient customers and revenue 
that may influence decision-making about the expenses associated with buying a 
refrigerator and paying for its energy use.
4. Page 22 - A method developed referencing internationally-accepted test standards. 
Referenced test methods include IEC62552 (househ5old refrigerating appliances 
– characteristics and test methods) and WHO/PQS/E003/RF05-VP.4 (refrigerator or 
combined refrigerator and water-pack freezer: solar direct drive without battery 
storage).
5. Page 22 - Truth in advertising refers to a product’s tested performance versus 
specified or claimed performance on key performance metrics (e.g. power 
consumption).
6. Page 24 - Unless there was a product warranty, field testers were obliged to cover 
subsequent costs and repairs following the testing period.
7. Page 41 - Please see CLASP Off-Grid Refrigerator Baseline Testing Data Analysis here 
- https://storage.googleapis.com/e4a-website-assets/Market-Baseline-Report-Off￾Grid-Refrigerators-May2018.pdf
8. Page 42 – It should be noted that some products results could not be determined or 
it was not possible to determine from the laboratory testing.
9. Page 43 – Two solutions were tested per finalist in field testing
.
10. Page 43 - Despite delays, the refrigerators that could be repaired, were repaired 
and left with testers. The refrigerators that did not work were collected by local E4I 
and CLASP staff and disposed.
11. Page 50 - https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/why-gender-is-key-to￾african-off-grid-energy-sales#gs.sX37bGU
12. Page 54 - Nor can it claim that original willingness to pay $100 is feasible.
13. Page 59 - But this is speculation as ability to pay was not measured.
14. Page 62 - Market Assessment of Modern Off-Grid Lighting Systems in 
Uganda. Lighting Africa, 2016. (https://www.lightingafrica.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/12/Uganda-2.pdf)
15. Page 62 - The State of the Off-Grid Appliance Market. CLASP, 2016. (https://
storage.googleapis.com/clasp-siteattachments/The-State-of-the-Global-Off-Grid￾Appliance-Market-Report.pdf)
16. Page 63 - Conference attendance was made by teams on individual basis and 
the competition did not subsidize their participation. As a result, some finalists 
decided not to demonstrate their products.
17. Page 64 - We are unable to account for how much of the program cost was for 
operations.
18. Page 72 - The reverberations of this delay extended to an abbreviated field test 
process, and less time for impact to occur and then be feasibly be measured and 
reported in this framework and the other partner learning documents.
19. Page 79 - Off-Grid Appliance Market Survey: Perceived Demand and Impact 
Potential of Household, Productive Use and Healthcare Technologies, Third 
Edition, Efficiency for Access Coalition, September 2018. (https://storage.
googleapis.com/e4a-website-assets/Market-Survey-2018.pdf)
6. Acronyms 
80
AC/DC Alternating current and direct current
B2B Business-to-business C Celsius
DFID UK Department for International Development
DOE United States Department of Energy
E4I Energy 4 Impact, a not-for-profit organization 
working towards energy access in Africa, with 
offices in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, 
Senegal, and the United Kingdom
EnDev Energising Development, an energy access 
partnership currently financed by six donor 
countries: the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, 
United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Sweden
FOB Free on board/shipping
Global 
LEAP 
Awards
GOGLA Formally Global Off-Grid Lighting Association
HCD Human-centered design
I2I Ideas 2 Impact, a DFID-funded program testing 
new technologies and innovative approaches to 
address development challenges
kWh Kilowatt hour
L Liters
N/A Not applicable
NGO Non-governmental organization
PAYGO Pay-as-you-go
RBF Results-based financing, and specifically, Global 
LEAP Off-Grid Appliance Bulk Procurement 
Incentives program
RH Relative humidity
ROI Return on investment
SHS Solar home system or solar home systems
SOGE Scaling Off-Grid Energy, a Grand Challenge for 
Development and partnership between USAID, 
Power Africa, DFID, African Development Bank, 
and the Shell Foundation
SME Small and microenterprise or microenterprises
TOC Theory of Change
UKAid United Kingdom Aid
US United States
USAID United States Agency for International 
Development
W Watts
WHO World Health Organization
Global Lighting and Energy Access Partnership 
Awards, a competition to identify and promote 
the world’s best off-grid appliances, accelerating 
market development and innovation
82 83
ToC What Indicators Who When How Question Results Target Value
Innovation
 Assumptipn
There are few off-grid refriger￾ation products available on the 
market that are appropriate for 
developing country consumers
Technicalities of current 
solutions available in the 
market (qualitative)
USAID Scoping field research in 
Uganda 
What are the technical specific 
details of the current solutions 
available?
Volume requirements ranged between 
10L-188L refrigerator capacity in a sur￾vey by CLASP, but majority of response 
fell between 50L-100L. Support for 
smaller units.
N/A
Usability - accessibility 
and cost of current 
solutions 
USAID Scoping field research in 
Uganda 
The threshold for demand begins at 
households who make over approx. 
$2500/year. At the high end, units peak 
at $1000 and at the other end units 
costs below $200 but are unreliable. 
Interviewees suggested that $100 for 
a reliable product would be reasona￾ble, but they recommend factoring in 
other appliances drawing power on an 
SHS and integrating a payment plan 
or financing options to acters to users’ 
income constraints.
N/A N/A
N/A Researcher Field visit Jan17 consultations What is the perceptions of 
open data and ICT in Nepal?
Yet 70% of them would like to receive 
more training and see more demon￾strations as well as more qualified local 
business to address their request and 
needs.” (CIMMYT research)
N/A N/A
Capability 
Assumption 
The prize will signal to manufac￾turers/designers and innova￾tors that the off-grid market 
has promising opportunities 
deserving of their skills and 
investment.
# of nominee who are 
new in producing off-grid 
refrigeration system
Nominee Before laborato￾ry testing Feb17 Entry Survey 
4 organisations are new to the off-grid 
refigeration industry, and 1 of these is 
already planning on selling its product in 
the Bangladesh market
N/A
% of gender presence in 
the nominee Nomineew Before laborato￾ry testing Feb17
Entry nomination 
form 
What percentage do women 
consitute of the team that 
developed this product? 
All competition: Out of 28 organisation, 
10 had a gender presence between 
0-20% in their teams. 16 had between 
21-50% of women in thei teams. And just 
2 organisations had 51-60% of women.
N/A
Information on part￾nerships from market 
research 
Nesta Scoping desk research N/A
There is limited information aviailable 
on partnerships in the sector, but there 
appears to be very few partnerships 
between off-grid refrigerator manufac￾turers and distributors. Partnerships 
occur at an institutional level and more 
information is available on this
N/A
% of solar power users 
aware of possibility to 
use off grid refrigerators 
with solar system (in test 
country)
Nesta Scoping desk research N/A
Most regions in Uganda are on grid, but 
there is a lack of knowledge about SHS. 
SHS also difficult to install due to the 
housing infrastrucutre in these parts of 
Uganda, as well as a high theft rate.
N/A
% of solar companies 
offering refrigerators as 
part of their solar system 
package 
Nesta Scoping desk research N/A
In Uganda, only SolarNow produce small 
fridges 35L and big fridges 112L as part 
of their solar systems package.
N/A
Ecosystem Assumption 
More efficient appliance including refrig￾erators will boost demands of solar home 
systems connections
Current demand in developing 
countries USAID Scoping desk research N/A
The demand in other developing countries: 
Bangladesh - very low, 60-80L,$300-500. India - low, 
45-55L,$70-625. Kenya - verylow, 50-55L, ~$300. 
Nigeria - low-to-medium, 50-55L, ~$300
N/A
Current demand in Uganda USAID Scoping field research in 
Uganda N/A
Market is nascent, penetrain is extremely low. 
Market tends to favour small refrigerators with an 
average preference between 50L-80L size. In terms 
of its uses, people need fridges to prevent food 
spoilage, cooling water and drinks, to sell chilled 
drinks and to store medicine.
N/A
ToC What Indicators Who When How Question Results Target Value
Ecosystem Assumption 
More efficient appliance including refrig￾erators will boost demands of solar home 
systems connections
Current demand in 
developing coun￾tries
USAID Scoping desk re￾search N/A
The demand in other developing countries: 
Bangladesh - very low, 60-80L,$300-500. India - low, 
45-55L,$70-625. Kenya - verylow, 50-55L, ~$300. 
Nigeria - low-to-medium, 50-55L, ~$300
N/A
Current demand in 
Uganda USAID Scoping field research 
in Uganda N/A
Market is nascent, penetrain is extremely low. 
Market tends to favour small refrigerators with an 
average preference between 50L-80L size. In terms 
of its uses, people need fridges to prevent food 
spoilage, cooling water and drinks, to sell chilled 
drinks and to store medicine.
N/A
Current market 
perception USAID Scoping field research 
in Uganda N/A
In term of brand awareness of SHS (solar brands), 
the World Bank found it was lowest in Central and 
Western regions of Uganda, where 89% and 83% of 
households couldn’t mention any brand. SolarNow 
are the most recognised particularly in Northern and 
Eastern region where 24% and 38% of households 
knew the brand
N/A
USAID target for 
growing solar sys￾tem value
USAID Scoping field research 
in Uganda N/A The SHS target is to increase the number of SHS 
connections by 20 million N/A
Appendix A: Impact Framework
Ecosystem 
Assumption 
More efficient appliance 
including refrigerators will 
boost demands of solar home 
systems connections
Current demand in 
developing countries USAID Scoping desk research N/A
The demand in other developing 
countries: Bangladesh - very low, 
60-80L,$300-500. India - low, 45-55L,$70-
625. Kenya - verylow, 50-55L, ~$300. 
Nigeria - low-to-medium, 50-55L, ~$300
N/A
Current demand in 
Uganda USAID Scoping field research in 
Uganda N/A
Market is nascent, penetrain is 
extremely low. Market tends to favour 
small refrigerators with an average 
preference between 50L-80L size. In 
terms of its uses, people need fridges to 
prevent food spoilage, cooling water and 
drinks, to sell chilled drinks and to store 
medicine.
N/A
Current market 
perception USAID Scoping field research in 
Uganda N/A
In term of brand awareness of SHS 
(solar brands), the World Bank found 
it was lowest in Central and Western 
regions of Uganda, where 89% and 
83% of households couldn’t mention 
any brand. SolarNow are the most 
recognised particularly in Northern and 
Eastern region where 24% and 38% of 
households knew the brand
N/A
USAID target for growing 
solar system value USAID Scoping field research in 
Uganda N/A The SHS target is to increase the number 
of SHS connections by 20 million N/A
84 85
ToC What Indicators Who When How Question Results Target Value
 Impact 
Activities 
Research with experts, 
innovators, and end 
users;
Engaging stakeholders;
Scoping problem 
definition;
Define competition 
and prize statement;
Design prize criteria 
and plan;
Technical performance of 
the product available on the 
market (quantitative)
CLASP Before laboratory 
testing Feb17 Clasp research 
The average refigerator consumes from 1 to 2.5 kWh energy per day. While an off-grid solar 
system would need atleast 2 kWp of capacity to support such a product and even then they 
would only be able to power the refigerator for a few hours each day
N/A
Qualitative Information 
provided by the nominee 
(on innovation)
Nominee via CLASP Before laboratory 
testing Feb17
Entry nomination 
form 
All nominees noted that their products were innovative through their energy efficiency, but 
they also had different innovative features to improve their product performance such as 
thicker insulation, higher efficient AC/DC compressors, sensors to control temperature. As well 
as innovative features to reduce product cost such as sensor-less controls and using low cost 
but high-quality material e.g. metal casings, house parts. Lastly, to improve its usability and 
accessibility using different door models, no locks, incorporating pay-as-you-go electronics into 
the systems solar module, ensuring height and width allows people with low mobility to use the 
product amongst many other features.
For nominees 
to create 
innovative 
features as 
part of their 
solutions
Positive
Status of cohort for field 
testing E4I Before field testing 
May18
Field research in 
Uganda 
Field testing of the OGRE solutions will be tested on the following characteristics: business 
profile (small retails shops), those familiar with solar (people who have used SHS), new 
refrigerator users (have not owned/used a refrigerator) and climate and location (test sites with 
similar climatics zones)
N/A
Feedback on judging and 
eligibility criteria
Judges and nominee 
via CLASP
Competition award 
Jan18
Competition survey 
(Participants, Judges)
Was there a clear link between 
the competition's criteria and 
what the competition was trying 
to achieve? 
Al judges agreed that there was a clear link between the criteria and the competition aims. Positive
Feedback on statement and 
problem definition 
Judges and nominee 
via CLASP
Competition award 
Jan18
Competition survey 
(Participants, Judges)
Was the competition statement 
clear and well-framed?
On average 94% of judges agreed at the very least that the competition statement was well￾framed Positive
 Capabilities 
Activities
Launch and 
implementation;
Open call to actions;
Recruit experts and 
judges for assessment;
Provide support for 
B2B partnerships
Laboratory testing;
Field Testing;
Award event/
campaign;
# of nominee that pass the 
screening CLASP Before laboratory 
Feb17
results from 
screening Current Status
Out of the 28 organisations that applied - 6 after the initial screen by CLASP went out 
of competition either due to their product being ineligible or of a low quality. Another 6 
nominations made it through the preliminary screening/round, but withrew from competition. 
While 15 organisations passed the screening and went on to the next stage of the competition 
via laboratory testing
Positive
# of nominee who never 
applied for USAID/UKAID 
before
Nominee via CLASP Before laboratory 
Feb17
Entry nomination 
form 
Have you applied for funding 
from USAID or UKAID in the past? 
Out of the 28 organisations that applied - 22 had never applied for USAID funding, whilse 4 
organisations had, while 2 did not provide an answer. Additionally, 25 had never applied to 
donor sunding to support the development of their product, 1 had applied and that was to the 
MacArthur Foundation, while 2 again did not respond.
Positive
Motivations for entry into 
the competition Nominee After lab testing 
Dec17 Finalist survey
What motivated you to enter 
the Off-Grid Refrigerator 
competition?
All of the finalists were motivated to enter the competition as they wanted the opportunity to 
win the competition. 85.7% either wanted the opportunity to win on of the innovation prizes, 
the opportunity to bring new/innovative solutions to market, learning from results iof the 
laboratory and/or field testing or the potential to scale an existing product.
Positive
% gender presence in the 
nominee Nominee via CLASP Before laboratory 
Feb17
Entry nomination 
form 
What percentage do women 
consitute of the team that 
developed this product? 
Still in competition: 6 organisations have between 0-20% of women in their team, while 8 teams 
have between of 21-50% of females in their organisations. Negative
Assumptions of cohort 
before field testing E4I Before field testing 
May18
Field testing pre￾form
What are you looking forward 
to the most from having a new 
fridge?/ What are you worried 
about the most about having a 
new fridge?
The 36 field testers expressed different assumptions about solar/off-grid refrigerators, as “it 
works efficiently without electricity, they work in areas without power, they work well, it cools 
drinks, it works like other fridges or they had never heard about solar/off-grid refrigerators”. 
75% of finalists associated solar/off-grid refrigerators with positive outcomes
Neutral
Type of support provided 
for partnership CLASP Competition award 
Nov18 Interview
What support was provided 
to finalists to engage in 
partnerships?
CLASP did not provide direct support for partnerships, events were held in which finalists were 
invited to meet key stakeholders within the off-grid refrigeration market, however finalists felt 
the only support provided was in reference to shipping costs, laboratory and field testing. 
Negative
satisfaction info received All partners Competition award 
Jan18 Focus Group
All partners were satsfied with the award events in Hong Kong and Kigali. It was noted that 
this competition brought together a dynamic partnership to create new and innovative off-grid 
refrigerators. 
Positive
Satisfaction from award 
event CLASP Competition award 
Jan/Nov18 interview/survey How satisfied were you with the 
award event(s)?
Out of 11 finalists, 6 of them were able to attend the announcement of the first two innovation 
prizes in Hong Kong. The majority were satisfied, however they did note that the timeline 
of when the announcement would be made was very unclear. For the last innovation prize 
awarded in Kigali, none of the finalists were able to attend.
Neutral
ToC What Indicators Who When How Question Results Target Value
 Ecosystem 
Activities
Launch and 
award event/
campaign;
Media and 
social media 
campaign;
Publicizing the 
prize winners 
(Advocacy)
Field Testing;
Coordinating 
donor agency 
partnership 
and Results 
Based 
Financing;
Product market data 
or expectations from 
nominee
Nominee via 
CLASP
Before laboratory 
Feb17
Entry nomination 
form 
How do you think your product 
will perform at market? Is your 
product ready to go to market? 
The majority of finalists had the expectations of increasing brand awareness, gaining 
validation of their product and attracting more sales. Positive
Field tester basic record 
of sales and expenditure E4I Before field 
testing May17 User survey
How much money do you 
make in the shop (in totla) 
per day?/How much monehy 
do you get from the sales of 
soft dinks (or other products 
intended for refrigeration)
The aggregated sales made in the 36 field testers shop is UGX5.215 million ($1398.76) of 
which 32% comes from the sale of soft drinks or other products used for refrigeration Neutral
Proposed cost in 
nominee form 
Nominee via 
CLASP
Before laboratory 
Feb17
Entry nomination 
form 
Total/Estimated total 
wholesale price of 500 units 
($USD) - Internal calculation
On average across all the finalists, the average wholesale price of one refrigerator unit is 
$610.30 USD N/A
Type of communication 
actions CLASP/DAI Ongoing Communication 
plan
CLASP conducted a nominations outreach campaign by leveraging their expansive and 
exisiting network, as well as facilitating engagement with the innovators. DAI supported 
SOGE in raising awareness of the competition and prize awards 
Attract 
a wide 
variety of 
innovators 
and interest 
in the off￾grid sector
Positive
86 87
ToC What Indicators Who When How Question Results Target Value
Innovation 
Outcomes
GENERATE TECHNICAL 
AND MARKET 
INNOVATION to develop 
off-grid appropriate 
refrigeration for 
developing countries
Extent to which nominee 
products perform better 
to those present in the 
market
Nominee via 
CLASP
After lab testing 
Dec17
Laboratory testing 
results
12 to 13 finalist off-grid refrigerators outperformed current off-grid refrigerators 
in the market in four major tests (steady-state operation [10C, 32C, 43C] and pull￾down time)
Positive
Judges feedback Judges Via CLASP Competition 
award Jan18 survey/interview
To what extent do you agree 
with each of the following 
statements: 'The Global 
LEAP Off-Grid Refrigeration 
Competition has contributed 
toward generating technical 
and market innovation?
All judges strongly agreed that the Global LEAP Off-Grid Rrefrigeration Competition 
contributed to generating technical and market innovation. Positive
Performance of product 
on the field
Local business 
via E4I
After field testing 
Nov18
Field testing 
results
Out of the 36 refrigerators tested in the field, 32 worked in the field though after 
installation, 9 products had technical issues with 1 being connected to the grid. The 
average daily energy consumption was 0.69 kWh p/day across all categories at an 
average external temperature of 27C and humidity of 63%. Only three products 
produced less energy than their original daily enerrgy consumption value.
For the 
majority of 
products to 
work and be 
tested in the 
field
Positive
GENERATING 
SOLUTIONS TO 
INCREASE THE VALUE 
PROPOSITION OF OFF￾GRID CONNECTIONS to 
give more people the 
benefits of a life with 
electric goods
Nominee feedback from 
the field test (qualitative)
Nominee via 
CLASP
After field testing 
Nov19 survey/interview
What are your reflections on 
the feedback provided in the 
field test report?
The majority of finalists were satisfied with the field test report as it allowed their 
solution to be independetly tested and therefore validated in Uganda, where 
the majority had n.ever worked before However, many noted there was critical 
information missing in both technical aspects and user experience and field testing 
conditions.
Neutral
Field testing results Local business 
via E4I
After field testing 
Nov20
User experience 
form
100% of field testers thought at the very least the products were easy to use and 
easy to open and close. 98% believed at the very least it was easy to fit these 
products into their business. Overall 96% of testers were happy with the products 
as it cooled their drinks well and fast. 
Positive
Capabilities 
Outcomes
MOBILISING TALENTS to 
generate solutions for 
off-grid refrigerator
% of successful nominee 
who are new to donor 
funding 
Nominee via 
CLASP
Before laboratory 
Feb17
Entry nomination 
form 
Have you applied for funding 
from USAID or UKAID in the 
past?
82% had never applied to donor funding and only two finalists - SunDanzer and 
SimuSolar had applied to USAID for funding. Positive
% of nominee who have 
transferred knowledge
Nominee via 
CLASP
Before laboratory 
Feb17 Entry Survey 
Did this prize challenge your 
organization to go beyond 
your expertise? If yes, how? If 
no, why?
57% of finalists felt they had transferred knowledge by going beyond their 
expertise highlighting the additional considerations into ways of improving energy 
efficieny and producing a low-cost solution
Neutral
Feedback from gender 
presence in the finalists 
and winners
Nominee via 
CLASP
Competition 
award Jan/Nov18 survey/interview
What percentage do women 
consitute of the team that 
developed this product? 
36% of finalists had 0-20% of women working on their team, another 36% had 
21-40% of women and 27% had 41-60% of women working on their off-grid 
refrigeration solution.
Neutral
BUILD B2B 
PARTNERSHIPS to 
accelerate distributions 
(partnership with 
distribution investors)
BUILD CONSUMERS 
CAPACITY (Awareness)
level of finalist 
satisfaction on new 
partnerships
Nominee via 
CLASPw
Competition 
award Jan/Nov18 
After lab test 
Dec17
survey/interview
Have you been able to build 
any partnerships over the 
course of the competition?
50% of finalists were able to build new partnerships or leverage existing 
partnerships to gain more customers. 25% were optimistic that through validation 
of the competition they would be able to build partnerships. 25% had not been 
able to realise any partnerships yet.
Neutral
To increase the value 
they associate to solar 
systems (local business 
and final clients)
User experience from 
field testing 
Local business/ 
via E41
During field 
testing Jul18
User experience 
form
User attitudes and reflection 
on solar/off-grid
Of the 36 field testers, 84% could purchase the off-grid refrigerator they tested, 
noting that the products supported an increase in sales and customers, as well as 
offering new additional business lines which they could sell.
Positive
Consumer feedback 
from field testing
Local business/
Consumers 
During field 
testing Jul18
User experience 
form/interview
User judgement and 
perception change on solar/
off-grid
All users (100%) assumed that they would somewhat gain from having a 
refrigerator, be it in sales or customers, but that process wasn’t initially clear to 
them. Earlier competition research indicated that users would only pay ~$100, 
but it was found that the most popular range was between $200 and $500. The 
fact, users are willing to pay more after they have used the products shows how 
perceptions change once they have the refrigerator.
Positive
ToC What Indicators Who When How Question Results Target Value
Ecosystem 
Outcomes 
GROWING A 
DIVERSE MARKET 
FOR EFFICIENT OFF 
GRID APPLIANCES 
to increase income, 
prosperity and the 
quality of products 
Market projections 
for competition 
finalist 
Nominee via 
CLASP/Nesta
Competition 
award Jan/
Nov 18
survey/
interview
How do you intend to 
bring your product(s) to 
market in developing 
countries? /What are your 
sales forecasts for this 
product?
The market projections of competition finalists is either zero or 
relatively low (in the low 000s p/year), as they note the off-grid 
market is slow to adopt the new and innovatie solutions.
Negative
Market projection for 
prize finalists
Local business 
via E4I/Nesta
After field 
testing Dec17
survey/
interview
How do you intend to 
bring your product(s) to 
market in developing 
countries? /What are your 
sales forecasts for this 
product?
For prize finalists (winners), SunDanzer (2) noted global sales for 
the products in this comptition had generally been in the low 
000s p/year. While Palfridge (1) is still a small scale operation, 
but their winning product is a commercial product noting sales 
across South Africa, however it is still early for them to offer any 
projections on this specific product
Negative
% of improvement 
in business sales vs 
expenditure
Local business 
via E4I
After field 
testing Dec17
results form 
field testing 
monitoring 
What is the value of the 
cold drinks sold?/How 
much money (total) has 
the business taken in 
the period?/How much 
money do you make in 
the shop (in total) per 
day?/How much money 
do you get from the sale 
of cold/ refrigerated 
drinks per day?
All 36 field testers found that their business sales increased 
exponentially at a rate of 21% across the testing period. While 
expenditure also increased by 42.2% in order to meet growing 
demand of customers coming from other villages for mainly cold 
drinks or ice. 
Positive
BUILD VALUE OF 
SOLAR HOME 
SYSTEMS to increase 
demand and 
subscriptions 
results from cost 
perception analysis 
Local business 
via E4I
After field 
testing Nov18
results form 
field testing 
monitoring 
How much would you be 
willing to pay for a solar 
refrigerator?
The results from the cost perception analysis found that the 
majority are willing to pay $200 to $500 in cash by installments 
paying $10-20 per month over a period of 1 to 3 years. 57% of 
users would pay between $200 and $500, 21% would pay less 
than $200, 16% would pay $500 to $700, 1% would pay $700-
$1000 and 4% did not respond as they felt they could not afford 
the refrigeration and system.
Neutral
Attitudes towards 
using SHS
Local business 
via E41/Nesta
After field 
testing Nov19
User 
experience/
interview/focus 
groups
What value do you think 
there is in SHS, and solar 
in general?
Out of the 36 field testers all of them found value in SHS as 
it had no significant cost implications, it was able to stay on 
continuously without any issues, it was safe. However all of 
them noted that they knew very few solar companies as they 
were all in different parts of rural Uganda, and didn't travel to 
the towns as frequently.
Positive
RAISING MARKET 
AWARENESS
on the existence of 
high quality off-grid 
products
results from cost 
perception analysis 
Local business 
via E4I
After field 
testing Nov18
results form 
field testing 
monitoring 
How much would you be 
willing to pay for a solar 
refrigerator?
The results from the cost perception analysis found that the 
majority are willing to pay $200 to $500 in cash by installments 
paying $10-20 per month over a period of 1 to 3 years. 57% of 
users would pay between $200 and $500, 21% would pay less 
than $200, 16% would pay $500 to $700, 1% would pay $700-
$1000 and 4% did not respond as they felt they could not afford 
the refrigeration and system.
Neutral
Attitudes towards 
using SHS
Local business 
via E41/Nesta
After field 
testing Nov19
User 
experience/
interview/focus 
groups
What value do you think 
there is in SHS, and solar 
in general?
Out of the 36 field testers all of them found value in SHS as 
it had no significant cost implications, it was able to stay on 
continuously without any issues, it was safe. However all of 
them noted that they knew very few solar companies as they 
were all in different parts of rural Uganda, and didn't travel to 
the towns as frequently.
Positive
Satisfaction with 
Global LEAP market 
facilitation
Nominee via 
CLASP
Competition 
award Nov18
survey/
interview
How satisfied are you 
with market engagement 
over the course of this 
competition?
85% of finalists felts the competition and Global LEAP had 
offered their products credibility towards the market. While 
Global LEAP facilitated and promoted the off-grid refrigeration 
solutions at award events, off-griwd and solar events, in-person 
meeting with distriubtors, manufacturers, investors to ensure 
the market was fully aware of these new and innovatibe 
solutions
Neutralw
# of brands known to 
provide high quality 
off-grid products
Nominee via 
CLASP
Competition 
award Nov18
Laboratory/
field testing 
results
There are now 17 high quality off-grid refrigerators available 
on the market that have undergone Global LEAP's rigorous 
laboratory and field testing methods.
w Positive
88 89
Appendix B: Sample Field Test Report
G-LEAP Field Test- Business Data Form: Bi-weekly responses (4)
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Entrepreneur ID
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Product ID
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Geolocalization
GPS coordinates can only be collected when outside.
latitude (x.y °)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
longitude (x.y °)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
altitude (m)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
accuracy (m)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How many people are employed at this business?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How many women?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How many men?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
If there are any difference in employment from the previous 
interview, what was the reason?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
BUSINESS/SALES INFORMATION
How is the fridge / fridge-freezer being used by the entrepreneur Observation by 
Field Researcher?
¡ Soft drinks - (Juice + Soda)
¡ Water
¡ Beer
¡ Raw food (fruits and vegetables)
¡ Raw meat
¡ Cooked food
¡ Milk
¡ Other
If other, specify
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Description of Items placed in freezer (if available in the unit):
¡ Water for ice
¡ Ice lollies
¡ Soft drinks
¡ Other
If other, specify
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How full is the fridge?
¡ Practically empty (0-25% full)
¡ Less than half full (25%-50% full)
¡ About half full (50% full)
¡ More than half full (50%-75% full)
¡ Completely full (100% full)
Please take a picture of the inside of the fridge ( with contents)
 Click here to upload file. (< 5MB)
Do you place items for household use in the unit?
¡ Yes ¡ No
What household items are you placing in the unit?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How much space do the household items occupy in the unit?
¡ Less than half the space
¡ About half the space
¡ More than half the space
Have you noticed a variation in sales since you received the fridge/freezer?
¡ 1. Yes- I am making far fewer sales
¡ 2. Yes- I have fewer sales, but not by much
¡ 3. No- I have not noticed any difference in sales
¡ 4. Yes- I have some more sales than before
¡ 5. Yes- I making many more sales than before
Explain you answer above
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How much money do you get from the sale of cold/ refrigerated drinks per day?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How much money do you make in the shop (in total) per day?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Have you noticed any change in the number of customers since using the 
product?
¡ 1. Yes- I have far fewer customers
¡ 2. Yes- I have fewer customers, but not by much
¡ 3. No- I have not noticed any difference in customer numbers
¡ 4. Yes- I have a few more customers than before
¡ 5. Yes- I have many more customers than before
Explain you answer above
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Have you started a new business line because of the product?
¡ Yes ¡ No
What additional business lines have you started?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How else has the product changed your business?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
OBSERVATIONS BY RESEARCHER OVER 1HR PERIOD
Enter date and time at start of observation
yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm
____________________________________________ ____________________________________________
How many drinks in total have been sold?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How many of those were cold drinks?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
What is the value of the cold drinks sold?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How much money (total) has the business taken in the period?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How many customers came to the shop (in total)?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
90 91
G-LEAP Field Test- User Experience Form- Bi-weekly responses
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Entrepreneur ID
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Respondent’s name
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Geolocalization
GPS coordinates can only be collected when outside.
latitude (x.y °)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
longitude (x.y °)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
altitude (m)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
accuracy (m)
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Gender
¡ Male ¡ Female
Product ID
___________________________________________________________________________________________
USE OF PRODUCT
What are you currently using the product for? (e.g. also for domestic use or not)?
¡ Only business uses- only placing business related items
¡ Only domestic uses- placing personal use items in the fridge
¡ Both business and domestic uses
Overall, how easy to use is the product?
¡ Very easy
¡ Easy
¡ Hard
¡ Very hard
How easy was it to open and close?
¡ Very easy
¡ Easy
¡ Hard
¡ Very hard
How easily does the product fit in your business space?
¡ Very easy
¡ Easy
¡ Hard - I had to rearrange my shop to find space for it
¡ Very hard - I had to completely change my shop or build an extra space for it
How happy are you with this product?
¡ Very happy
¡ Happy
¡ Neither happy nor unhappy
¡ Unhappy
¡ Very unhappy
What do you like BEST about the product?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
What do you like LEAST about the product?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How much did you like the look of this product?
¡ 1. It is ugly I really do not like how it looks
¡ 2. It doesn't look very nice
¡ 3. It is ok i neither like nor dislike how it looks
¡ 4. It looks good
¡ 5. It looks very good
What would you change about this product?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Do you think this product has been good for your business?
¡ 1. No- It has been VERY bad for business
¡ 2. No- I has been bad for business
¡ 3. I have not noticed any difference in the business
¡ 4. Yes- It has been good for business
¡ 5. Yes- It has been VERY good for business
Explain you answer above
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Anything else you would like to add regarding usability?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
COST EXPECTATIONS
Would you purchase this product?
¡ Yes ¡ No
Explain your answer above
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Would you purchase a different solar refrigeration product?
¡ Yes ¡ No
Explain your answer above
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How much would you be willing to pay for a product like this?
¡ Less than UGX 720K ($200)
¡ UGX 720K- 1.8M / ($200-$500)
¡ UGX 1.8M-2.7M / ($500-$700)
¡ UGX 2.7M -3.6M/ ($700-$1000)
¡ More than UGX 3.6M ($1000)
How would you pay for a product like this?
¡ Cash at once
¡ Cash by installments
¡ Get a loan
Based on you answer above, how much deposit would you expect to pay?
¡ Less than UGX 180K ($50)
¡ UGX 180K ($50)
¡ UGX 180K-360K ($50-$100)
¡ UGX 360K-720K ($100-$200)
¡ More than UGX 720K (More than $200)
How much would you be willing to pay in monthly installments?
¡ Less than UGX 36K ($10)
¡ UGX 36K-72K ($10-$20)
¡ UGX 72K-180K ($20-$50)
¡ > UGX 180K (More than $50)
How long would you expect the loan to last?
¡ Less than 1 year
¡ Between 1-3 years
¡ Between 3-5 years
¡ More than 5 years
Anything else you would like to add regarding cost?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Anything else you would like to add?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
A picture of the fridge and installation
 Click here to upload file. (< 5MB)
92
Expert Judges
Steven Hunt 
(UK Department for International Development)
Dr. Arne Jacobson 
(Schatz Energy Research Center, Humboldt State University)
John Keane 
(SolarAid)
Dr. Rezwan Khan
(United International University)
Charles Muchunku 
(former Chairman, Kenya Renewable Energy Association)
Gopal Nadadur 
(Clinton Health Access Initiative)
Arthur Itotia Njagi
(IFC Lighting Africa)
David O’Connor 
(Solar Sister)
Himanshu Pokharna 
(Inficold)
Clare Boland Ross 
(Rockefeller Foundation)
Kate Steel
(USAID/Power Africa) 
Written by:
Bhavik Doshi
Research and Impact Coordinator, 
Challenge Prize Centre, Nesta
bhavik.doshi@nesta.org.uk
Partners
Donors
Implementors