When specialists in the evaluation of humanitarian action meet they often complain that “evaluations tell us nothing new”. Can this complaint be justified and, if so, can any additional insights into the reasons be discovered? An analysis and comparison is made of the recommendations arising from the evaluations of the humanitarian response to two major forced displacements and two natural disasters. The comparison is used to identify the extent to which recommendations made in the evaluation of the earlier of each pair were repeated in the subsequent evaluations. An analysis of the subjective influences reported as impinging upon nine of the earliest evaluations of humanitarian actions is made. A series of 22 elite interviews with staff of humanitarian organisations and independent consultants directly involved in the evaluation of humanitarian action reveals the continuing influence of these ‘subjective’ factors and indicates of a lack of confidence in the evaluation process as a tool for institutional learning. The roles of agency and structure in the subjective influences impinging on the evaluation of humanitarian action are analysed and recommendations made for the improvement of the evaluation/learning cycle