Efforts to advance the status of women and girls continue to confront a persistent challenge: progress is fleeting when the belief systems that shape gender norms remain unaddressed, and faith leaders and faith communities are not engaged. While philanthropy has invested in programmes, policies, and services to advance women and girls’ agency and wellbeing, it has been far more hesitant to engage the religious and cultural frameworks through which harmful patriarchal norms are sustained.

Funder hesitation is understandable. Indeed, many of the most harmful practices against women and girls are upheld either explicitly or implicitly by faith communities. Female genital mutilation and early marriage are rooted in long-standing beliefs that a woman’s purity determines family honour. Intimate partner violence often draws from the belief that men are divinely appointed as superior to women and that it is a man’s responsibility to hold authority over women.

However, a set of case studies we completed in September 2025 with six of our grantee partners^[1] revealed a growing body of research that suggests a different reality: faith-centred and faith-inclusive approaches, when carefully designed and locally led, have shown significant positive outcomes, including shifts in gender attitudes, reductions in gender-based violence, and increases in women’s decision-making power and leadership opportunities. To illustrate:

• Training religious leaders and, with them, catalysing community action to address gender-based violence in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo led to a 57 percent decline in women’s experience of intimate partner violence and an 80 percent reduction in non-partner sexual violence. It also yielded a range of more equitable gender attitudes and beliefs^[2].
• Engaging local leaders and mobilising communities in Uganda achieved a 52 percent reduction in women’s risk of physical violence from male partners. In addition, tolerance for men’s use of violence against women declined sharply (76 percent of women and men believing that physical violence against a partner is never acceptable compared to only 26 percent in control communities). Women and men were also more likely to support women’s financial independence and autonomy and agree that women and men should make decisions jointly^[3].
• A similar approach adapted for the Haitian context cut intimate partner violence rates from 23 percent to 12 percent, with reported violence against adolescent girls and young women dropping by nearly 40 percent. It also led to more balanced household decision-making, equal value placed on daughters and sons, and improved financial transparency between partners^[4].

Overall, the most surprising finding is that the same religious structures that too often sustain inequality contain the best resources to dismantle it.

Faith leaders are often among the most trusted voices in their communities, with authority that extends far beyond the walls of worship. Their teachings shape gender roles, expectations around marriage and family, and attitudes toward violence and power. For example, a 2015 World Vision household survey in the Solomon Islands found that 78 percent of respondents in one region, and 95 percent in another, indicated they would change the way they treat their spouse if advocated by their church leaders^[5]. When faith leaders affirm the equal dignity and worth of women and men, they help entire communities shift, opening new possibilities for dignity, partnership, and flourishing for women and girls.

One salient example comes from Raising Voices’ SASA! intervention in Ethiopia, where Orthodox Christian priests are some of the most highly esteemed individuals in the community. Religion and culture are closely linked, and people often bow and kiss priests’ hands and the crosses they carry when they pass. At the same time, caring for a child is seen as a woman’s work, and no man, let alone a priest, is expected to do it. So, when Natsnet Ghebrebrhan, co-director of Raising Voices, saw one of the priests, who is an activist in the SASA! community programme, carrying his sick child to the clinic, she recognised it as more than just helping care for his child. It is this kind of role modelling from a priest’s position of influence that is shifting gender norms in patriarchal communities^[6].

Though each of our grantee partners’ models is distinctly local, all six share a common thesis and consistent arc of transformation: that enduring shifts in gender norms must begin by engaging the worldviews and moral frameworks that sustain them. Specifically, they do so by engaging religious leaders’ core beliefs in a manner that is respectful and speaks most deeply to them, which is often through the use of sacred texts, guided discussion, and self-reflection.

The case studies make clear that change isn’t unlocked by outsiders asserting gender equality, prescribing new rules, or shaming the patriarchy. The starting point for ‘good faith approaches’ has to be a willingness to engage in good faith.

What defines good faith approaches?

Meeting people with respect and honouring the ground they stand on makes transformation possible for the very leaders and communities who are perpetuating harmful social norms. Then, trust and self-reflection open the door to collective dialogue, shared accountability, and public action. The opportunity to learn, engage, and understand more deeply what their sacred text is actually saying really speaks to faith actors and helps them see that power imbalances are not divinely mandated but the result of human interpretation. Once faith leaders’ own hearts and minds are transformed, the ripple effect in the community can spark wider dialogue, the emergence of local gender equality champions, and community mobilisation for action that, together, bring profound and durable change to traditionally patriarchal communities.

So, what does this mean for funders?

1. Embrace faith as a force for justice: Across these case studies, lasting impact was achieved when funders supported efforts working with and through faith, not around it. Funders need to be willing to take a risk, including straddling the secular-religious divide.

• Back local leaders and organisations: Across our case studies, funders prioritised community-driven solutions that engaged local leaders from the outset and invested in local faith and community champions to lead and sustain progress over time. This approach builds trust and ownership and ensures inclusive design reflecting relevant social dynamics, language, and relationships. Solutions cannot be imported; they have to come from within.

• Be flexible and commit for the long haul: Funders who made the impactful work of our case study partners possible understood the long-term nature of faith-led social norms change and provided patient, flexible funding that allowed local partners to change project plans, timelines, and resource allocations based on continuous learning and in light of new challenges, opportunities, and ways forward that they identified.

• Strengthen the ecosystem: The most impactful funders invested in the ecosystem, allowing faith-centred actors to grow, individually and together. Such investments included funding leadership development, mentorship and training, development of monitoring, evaluation and learning capabilities, and spaces for shared learning across a range of actors.

The evidence is strong enough that the question is not whether faith-centred approaches work. Rather, it is whether we are willing to invest in one of the most powerful and underutilised forces for advancing the dignity, agency, and rights of women and girls.

Andrew Jones is Co-Director and Impact Partner of the Imago Dei Fund.

Jena Lee Nardella isthe Director of the Acceleration Program at Dovetail Impact Foundation and previously was lead researcher and author of Imago Dei’s Good Faith Approaches to Gender Equality case studies report.

The post Can the structures that sustain gender inequality dismantle it? appeared first on Alliance magazine.

Alice Cerutti, owner of Cascina Oschiena farm, shows a spike of Carnaroli rice in a field in the countryside of Crova, near Vercelli, northwestern Italy on September 28, 2026. (Photo by Marco BERTORELLO / AFP)

It is estimated that 645 million people faced hunger in 2025. Beyond ensuring access to sufficient food, populations must have access to safe, diverse, and nutritious diets. However, healthy diets are unaffordable for almost one in three people globally, with the crisis hitting Africa particularly hard.

That challenge is becoming more complex as food systems contend with a more volatile operating environment. Erratic weather patterns are placing greater pressure on agricultural production, while geopolitical disruption has highlighted the vulnerability of global shipping and supply chains. Together, these pressures reinforce that feeding a growing population while strengthening resilience across food systems will continue to require significant investment.

As the funding landscape becomes increasingly constrained, every investment decision carries greater weight. FAO estimates that transforming global agrifood systems requires closing an annual financing gap of US$680 billion. Much of today’s funding continues to focus on farm-level production, while many significant opportunities to strengthen food systems sit beyond the farm gate, across processing, storage, market access, entrepreneurship and skills.

The gap is not a matter of insight but of distance. For many philanthropic organisations, individual commitments may be modest relative to the scale of the food security challenge. Capital is also often deployed separately, according to each funder’s mandate, risk appetite and reporting cycle.

Bringing those individual commitments together gives philanthropic funders the ability to support integrated programmes at a scale that would be difficult to achieve independently.

A connected system – and problem

Farm-level production and the activities that follow it form one connected system. Investment in either part becomes less effective when the other remains underdeveloped. Investment at farm level has transformed agricultural production in many parts of the world. Better inputs, improved farming practices and on-farm technology have helped farmers increase productivity and should continue to receive support. These investments remain fundamental to food security.

Food security extends well beyond production. Water, carbon, biodiversity, gender, and livelihoods are often funded as separate priorities, despite reinforcing one another in practice. A farm’s gains cannot be sustained when surrounding land and water are degraded, or when the people carrying the work forward cannot participate in the economic opportunities that follow. Environmental resilience and economic participation need to progress together.

Processing, storage, logistics, market access, entrepreneurship, and skills determine whether a harvest becomes income, and whether income creates jobs, businesses and stronger local economies long after crops leave the farm. These parts of the system have received comparatively less attention, despite their role in turning agricultural production into lasting economic value.

The consequences of these inefficiencies lead to food loss. Globally, 13.2 percent of food is lost after harvest and before it reaches the consumers. Investment beyond the farm gate can preserve more of what is produced while strengthening the infrastructure, businesses, and market connections needed to move food efficiently to consumers. Whether capital is directed at the farm or at what happens after it, both are part of the same investment case, and a partner with reach across the full system can help deploy it either way.

Can pooled capital be a fix?

For philanthropic funders whose individual commitments cannot reach this scale alone, pooling capital can provide greater continuity and reach. Pooled funding can support a cycle of implementation that generates value over time. Capital funds a first cycle of work. That work produces a return through a harvest, goods reaching market or a new income stream. Those returns support the next cycle of activity, allowing impact to build beyond the life of a single grant or programme.

This approach also allows different funding mandates to contribute to a common programme. A single initiative can advance water stewardship, biodiversity, carbon outcomes, livelihoods, and gender because these priorities already reinforce one another on the ground. Funders can pursue their respective objectives through an integrated programme instead of commissioning separate projects for each outcome.

Delivery capability is central to making this model work. It requires organisations with relationships across the value chain, trusted partnerships with farming communities, entrepreneurs and processors, systems that can monitor outcomes, and the capacity to scale through established infrastructure and public-private partnerships. With those capabilities in place, this capital can support larger programmes, connect multiple priorities and produce measurable outcomes that can be strengthened over time.

Pooled capital unlocks scale through women and youth

Much of the activity beyond the farm gate depends on people building businesses, creating jobs and expanding market opportunities. Women and youth are central to this part of the food system. Across the value chain, they are producers, entrepreneurs, and business owners; however, their ability to grow and participate in the economic opportunities around them depends on access to capital, skills, and markets. This is where philanthropic capital can make a tangible difference. Investment can help women and youth grow enterprises, strengthen their role in processing and market activities and give them the skills and opportunities to build viable livelihoods.

But this cannot be separated from what happens on the farm itself. Gender is often treated as a co-benefit of food security work – a positive side effect rather than a core driver. In reality, it’s a necessary component. In many smallholder communities, as men increasingly leave for urban jobs to supplement household income, women take on the central role in fieldwork, on top of their existing responsibilities at home. A food security model that leaves gender out isn’t simply missing a nice-to-have; it is missing the person now doing much of the core farm work and will be less effective as a result.

This also comes at a time when women control a growing share of global wealth and will increasingly influence how capital is deployed. There is a significant opportunity for women philanthropists and investors to pool their capital in support of women-led food system transformation today, while also backing the next generation who will shape more resilient food systems for the years to come.

A place for philanthropy

Food security requires a shift in thinking. Integrated investment across the full value chain creates returns that build over time: stronger supply chains; less loss between farm and market; and measuring, strengthening, and repeating outcomes instead of rebuilding with every new programme.

Farm-level investment remains essential. Its impact becomes stronger when accompanied by the processing capacity, market connections, enterprises and skills that allow production to generate lasting economic value. By combining their commitments, philanthropic organisations can support work at a scale that would be difficult to achieve independently. Partners with the infrastructure, systems and capability to translate collaborative investment into measurable outcomes can give funders the confidence to participate alongside others.

This provides a practical route for philanthropic capital to work collectively, reach further, and build food systems that are better equipped to adapt to an increasingly unpredictable world.

Paul Nicholson is Vice President and Head of Rice Research and Sustainability at Olam Agri.

The post Food security needs more pooled capital that reaches the whole system appeared first on Alliance magazine.

In an announcement made before the US midterm elections, Ford Foundation President Heather Gerken spelled out her strategy given that the ‘preconditions for thriving, resilient, meaningful democracy have changed’. 

In a statement, Gerken laid out her mark on the foundation’s strategy, a year into her tenure. 

‘Since the Ford Foundation’s last major strategic review more than a decade ago, the world has changed profoundly. The inequality on which we have fixed our focus has proven both a consequence of our unbalanced, imperiled democracy and a cause of its continued degradation. Along with economic insecurity—also cause and consequence—inequality has destabilised communities around the world and driven a pernicious breakdown in trust,’ said Gerken. 

Ford’s new strategy will focus on seven funding areas, strengthening ‘democratic values, fundamental freedoms, and inclusive economies’, as well as continuing to advance racial and gender justice.  

Ford also said that it would change how it funds, not just what it funds. 

‘Collectively, we do not award enough of the flexible, multiyear grants our partners need. We have relied on intermediaries to extend our reach while declining to fund their operations. And when a field is under attack, too many funders step away just when their partners most need their support,’ the strategy outlined. 

Ford said it will organise grantmaking programs ‘differently, with larger teams and more centralised funding’, adding; ‘ Our aim is to steer steadily, while ensuring that our grantmaking is flexible enough to allow for pivots, surge funding, and new targets of opportunity.’ 

Larger, multiyear grants focused on general operating support will also be a key focus and ‘build relationships with sources of capital outside of institutional philanthropy in order to grow the resources available to our grantees.’ 

The midterm elections on 3 October are set to be the most expensive elections ever conducted in the US, with wealthy donors spending on political ads. 

Shafi Musaddique is the news editor at Alliance magazine 

The post Ford Foundation to spend $700 million fighting ’21st century authoritarianism’ appeared first on Alliance magazine.

This article is only available for our subscribers.

View on Alliance magazine

The post An Alaskan story of ‘fishing, philanthropy, and finding a way’ appeared first on Alliance magazine.

Beneath lying flat, a mountain of challenges weighs on younger generations in Asia: rising unemployment, the exorbitant cost of living, clashing expectations with their parents, and more. This complex reality can’t be oversimplified; stepping into their shoes, it’s no wonder they no longer believe conventional ambition will deliver a better future. But that doesn’t stop them from doing good. Many feel a deep yearning to make a difference—and just not in the traditional sense.

Simply put, young people still care, and they’re quietly redefining what philanthropic participation looks like. For one, they want their contributions to fit their lives, so they’re drawn to flexible, digital, and even experiential ways to get involved.

How can we open more doors for young people to participate in social impact then?

1. Make volunteering flexible

As Gen Zs in Asia and beyond place greater value on flexibility in the workplace, the same naturally extends to volunteering. A 2024 report by the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups finds that 85% of more than 1,000 surveyed youth were interested in volunteering, but 78% said time constraints made it difficult for them to continue participating. A flexible volunteer model addresses this by offering adaptable engagement options that fit around tight schedules. No fixed hours, short-term roles, digital training—you can do it anytime, anywhere.

Matching platforms like Singapore’s giving.sg lower barriers to entry, making it easier to find roles that suit one’s experience, interests, location, and availability. You can browse hundreds of opportunities in one single, centralised portal, alongside a simple registration and onboarding process.

2. Diversify opportunities to participate

Recent years have seen alternative forms of volunteering such as micro-volunteering and skills-based volunteering spring up. I remember visiting an orphanage in my teenage years and wishing I could do beyond that one-time visit—what if I could tutor young children there after school? And I believe that sentiment is widely shared. Young people often want to put their knowledge and skills to use through activities like mentoring, pro bono work, and advocacy. These opportunities also allow them to build their portfolios and network outside their 9-to-5 jobs. A graphic designer might help design an annual report. A researcher might explore potential prospects—like what I recently started off through the charity platform Time Auction.

What’s even more empowering is letting young people take ownership of causes they care about. Backed by the education ministry, Taiwanese youth are encouraged to form volunteer teams and come up with a proposal; once selected, they’ll be given up to NT$100,000 to execute it.

3. Enable digital giving

Younger generations’ preference for digital giving through mobile apps, crowdfunding platforms, and social media is evident worldwide. A recent US-focused study suggests a tech-forward approach among Next-Gen donors across all aspects of their philanthropy.

And Asia is no exception. Looking into the digital giving landscape in Southeast Asia, Tech for Good Institute notes how giving is made more accessible to younger and lower-income donors through digital infrastructure like QR payment gateways and in-app donation features. Malaysia’s Touch ‘n Go eWallet is a telling example (out of many), enabling instant, zero-fee micro-donations as low as RM0.01, perfect for those just embarking on their philanthropy journey.

4. Make impact fun and social

For many young people, philanthropy doesn’t have to be strictly formal; it can be an everyday, participatory experience, ideally one that’s shareable online. One familiar and remarkably successful example is Alipay Ant Forest, a gamified mini-program that turns casual low-carbon habits like walking and taking public transportation into real-world tree planting. According to an interview with the Ant Forest Foundation’s Secretary-General, young people aged 18 to 25 make up a large share of its over 700 million users, partly driven by their passion for environmental protection.

Vietnam’s Heo Đất MoMo (Piggy Bank) offers another engaging way to support charitable causes. Users can collect ‘golden pigs’—each worth only a trivial amount—through simple daily tasks such as waking up early and playing quizzes to make donations. A 26-year-old office worker accumulated 430,000 VND little by little within two years and donated it all to charity.

There are countless other examples across Asia’s public, private, and philanthropic sectors. While the specifics vary, one common thread stands out: letting young people participate in ways that work for them.

Jodee Fok is a Hong Kong-based writer and researcher focusing on philanthropy, cross-sector collaboration, and social innovation in Asia.

The post Lying flat, giving differently appeared first on Alliance magazine.

First opened in 2020, Rest of World rapidly made a name for itself covering Global South technology stories, a move away from publishers covering Silicon Valley and US Big Tech.  

Sophie Schmidt, director at the Schmidt Family Foundation and the daughter of former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, initially backed the publication with $60 million of her own funds. 

In an email to donors seen by the New York Times, Schmidt said the publication would ‘cease publishing as a standalone entity’, and is on the lookout for a new home.  

Insiders told the publication Semafor that Schmidt has held conversations with ‘several large institutions about potentially absorbing Rest of World’ and that a contingency is in place ‘intended to ensure employees receive exit packages and to give them a chance to look for new jobs if they so choose’. 

Rest of World has received grants from major philanthropies over the past six years. 

In March 2023, Rest of World received a $200,000 grant from the Ford Foundation to expand its mission of covering ‘the impact of tech by highlighting the experiences of everyday people’. In November 2023, Rest of World received a $100,000 grant from the Henry Luce Foundation to support our coverage of religion and technology.  

Luminate also provided a $200,000 sponsorship deal to support its coverage of global elections and the ways tech platforms and AI are affecting them. 

Writing on Linkedin, Rest of World‘s former editor in chief Anup Kaphle said the publication ‘wanted to cover the people who were building, hacking, gig-working, organizing, and surviving through technology in countries like Nepal, where I grew up’ 

‘Media ventures end for many reasons, and most of them are economic. That doesn’t change what Rest of World was able to prove: the audience was real, the journalism mattered, and the model of covering the world from the world actually works’ he said.  

Rest of World shifted towards an American readership after seeing traffic drop in 2025, squeezed by the move towards short videos and a rightwing political cultural shift in the tech landscape. 

Shafi Musaddique is the news editor at Alliance magazine 

The post Philanthropy-backed Rest of World to cease publishing   appeared first on Alliance magazine.

Think of a time where an image of a child or a woman in a distressed situation evoked an emotion that caused you to part, or almost part, with your hard-earned money. Try to identify the elements of the image that triggered those emotions in you.

Was it a pair of sad eyes from a dirt-stricken face? Or torn clothes clinging to a frail body? 

In most cases, images like these cause us to feel momentarily uncomfortable while simultaneously nudging us to reflect on our own economic state. They catch us unaware on LinkedIn or Instagram while we wait for $10 coffees and prompt us to reconsider what we can afford to share with others. 

While effective to some degree in generating donations, using images like these as a fundraising strategy is not, however, consequence free. More often than not, strategic photographs fail to consider the dignity of those they depict and they contribute to the perpetuation of saviour narratives the sector has long tried to dispel. 

What’s more, images of this nature are also short-sighted as a tactic to invoke meaningful public emotion, inducing acute reactions rather than the deeper engagement required for sustainable, committed funding channels. 

Deficit-based images lend to indignities

Fundamentally, fundraising models that utilise images of people in their most vulnerable moments and plaster them into the minds of millions across the globe, systematically remove the agency of those experiencing suffering.  

In an age where we are discussing AI deep fakes, we still overlook and exploit the faces and bodies of those who have not been given the conditions to give full consent, and rarely is there financial recompense, emotional support, or adequate communication in appropriate languages for those involved to know exactly how, when, and for how long their images will be used.  

Many charities, specifically those who support the lives of children and women, continue to utilise a deficit-based image, and while the above may seem like common sense, from my own experience talking to those in the charity and philanthropic sector, many continue to defend their image choices with lines like the following: 

‘Well, they are just grateful that they are going to receive resources that they need to survive…’ 

‘They don’t care about how they look; they care about just being seen, and their stories being told…’ 

‘What do you mean consensus given their situation?’ 

It’s an attitude that locks fundraising into deficit-based ideologies that disempower and dehumanise the sector, while feeding an emotional conditioning loop with largely global minority publics.   

If I may say, these decisions also seem to be a lazy play by the marketing departments of many charitable organisations, when research has shown there are plenty of evidence-based alternatives to philanthropic imaging. For example, asset-based framing encourages applying the lens that highlights the strengths of those in discussion. It acknowledges beauty in diversity and sees it as social capital.  

We can do better

It’s time to believe that philanthropy can aim higher than stripping humans of their dignity in a bid to meet KPIs or as a defence for restoring that dignity twofold down the line. Dignity that is, independently, one of the very human rights the sector claims to be so committed to defending.  

The research is there, and there are many organisations the world over who are successfully showing how to reject defecit-based images in preference for asset-based framings (see Futbol4Life, Global Fund for Children, and Global Fund for Women).  

For others ready to follow suit, here are a few principles that can be adhered to as images are taken and selected for nonprofit and foundation materials: 

• Highlight the strengths of the person(s) and community 

• Present capacities and abilities that could be built from 

• Exemplifies joy in an authentic manner 

• Steer focus towards cultural capital the person(s)/community holds 

• Co-construct the frame with the person(s) being photographed 

By taking a stand and thinking as much about our external visuals as we do our internal programmes, so the philanthropic sector can yet realign itself, and shift from its focus on ‘fixing problems’ to partnering with people as equals, so together we can build new futures.  

Madiha Patel is a Professional and Technical Writing (PTC) professional who specialises in writing services for community-based organisations.  

The post Why philanthropy’s visuals matter  appeared first on Alliance magazine.

The sector has traditionally been far more confident speaking about the resources needed for survival than about the non-essential products and profits on which those resources are often built.

Yet the luxury sector is an important part of the philanthropy conversation with Chanel alone committing US$125 million a year to its Fondation CHANEL, which supported more than 250 partners in over 60 countries in 2024. 

This may be the simple answer to the question of why philanthropy should endure the luxury sector. The longer answer, however, may be tied to three transferable lessons. 

1. Luxury brands can teach philanthropy how to build institutions that outlast a specific team or a good year.
2. They can deliver in areas that traditional philanthropy does not always reach.
3. They illustrate the guard rails necessary to keep public mission ahead of brand.

Luxury philanthropy in practice

Luxury, like much of philanthropy, is built on the idea of longevity. Product craftsmanship is passed from one generation to the next and the history of the great Maisons spans centuries. But today, it is not only a brand’s heritage – or its products – that are intended to endure. Some luxury companies have spent recent decades building their support for cultural and social initiatives, looking to turn philanthropy into another legacy pillar. 

Hermès is one example. The Fondation d’entreprise Hermès, created in 2008, grew out of a Maison with a history of almost 200 years. Its Académie des savoir-faire brings together craftspeople, designers, and specialists from different disciplines, and its philanthropic support naturally falls into similar cultural causes. 

Meanwhile, The Fondation Louis Vuitton opened in Paris in 2014 in a building designed by Frank Gehry. Today, it is a cultural institution with a collection, exhibitions, staff and an ongoing programme. While many nonprofit organisations depend on good intentions and ad hoc donations when times are good, it understands that on-going engagement requires a counteroffer, and established institutions can garner public loyalty and sustained funds by curating physical hubs and social prestige around giving. 

Chanel offers another model. Fondation CHANEL is not built around art or cultural heritage but draws on its links primarily with women and girls, their economic independence, and their access to opportunities. Rather than trying to solve complex social problems itself, the foundation also relies on the expertise of organisations already working with local communities. The company provides resources and support while knowledge of the local context remains with those who encounter these challenges every day. 

Similarly, Cartier Philanthropy, established in 2012, works on social challenges far removed from the world of jewellery. It has supported organisations like Healthy Learners, an organisation developing school-based healthcare in Zambia since 2019, with the programme now reaching more than 1.2 million children across 882 schools.  

Public mission or brand interest?

Each of these examples of emergent giving are framed by a wider question: is philanthropy by luxury brands intrinsically problematic, especially where cultural and social initiatives also promote the brand directly? And the objection has force.  

Large cultural projects create public value while also strengthening a company’s reputation and its relationship with the art world. Critics of corporate philanthropy may argue that, in such cases, the boundary between public mission and corporate interest becomes too blurred and that objection should not be overlooked. 

That said, maybe there are more interesting questions than whether an individual or company benefits from their own philanthropy. These include whether mutual benefit can exist without subordinating public mission to the interests of a brand. 

A strategic business interest does not in itself diminish public benefit. It may even be one of the mechanisms that makes such benefit more durable. When an initiative matters both to society and to a company, the business has more reasons to continue supporting it through changes in leadership and budget cycles. Luxury philanthropy is showing it understands this and is building these structures with the use of guardrails. 

Guard rails: transparency and partnership

One such guardrail is that of transparency. In practice, this means publishing what is funded and with what results, commissioning independent evaluation, and involving partners and beneficiaries in defining what success looks like. 

Another is partnership. Choosing an important issue is not enough to make luxury philanthropy sustainable. Long-term partnerships matter, as does allowing organisations to develop over time. Luxury brands with long histories tend to understand this intrinsically and so are often more comfortable developing long-view visions rather than demanding quick results. 

The Kering Foundation shows how this can look in practice. Established in 2008 with a focus on combating violence against women, it developed long-term partnerships with specialist organisations and supported prevention programmes. This work gradually became part of the company’s internal culture and Kering developed initiatives for employees to increase awareness of domestic violence and its warning signs. In 2023, the foundation expanded its mission to include the protection of children from violence.  

Longevity does not mean remaining unchanged: and luxury brands can be good examples for how a strategy can evolve as understanding of a problem deepens without losing its central direction. 

What philanthropy can learn from luxury

Luxury brands offer something that traditional philanthropy does not always find easy to generate: social pride and desirability, while carrying the same historic affectations. They also speak the language of many high-net-worth individuals in today’s society, and offer useful access to them. 

The luxury industry has long known how to create things intended to outlast a season, a trend and sometimes even their owner. Perhaps philanthropy should broaden its gaze to achieve the same ambition. This could be the answer to why the wider philanthropy sector should endure the luxury sector – at least for a little longer. 

Aksana Kuzmich is a postgraduate candidate at ESG Luxe in Paris. 

The post Why should philanthropy endure the luxury sector? appeared first on Alliance magazine.

This article is only available for our subscribers.

View on Alliance magazine

The post Can philanthropy change AI’s reward system? appeared first on Alliance magazine.

In an open letter, 625 faith leaders called for the Gates Foundation ‘to acknowledge that their interventions in Africa’s food and farming systems have failed’. 

‘While we note that the Gates Foundation has committed itself to ending food insecurity and poverty in Africa, we are gravely concerned about the approach it continues to take, through its support of Agra (until recently known as the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa),’ they said in the letter. 

African faith leaders first asked the Foundation to stop funding Green Revolution programmes in 2020.  

‘The Foundation has not provided a meaningful response. The delegation will formally ask the Foundation to meet them before its next funding decisions for 2026 are made and to respond to the independent research that shows how their investments are not working in Africa,’ they said. 

Among their concerns, faith leaders warned the Gates Foundation promoted a model reliant on expensive ‘synthetic’ fertilisers and seeds, placing smallholder farmers ‘at the mercy of volatile global prices to maintain their yields’, a reduction in soil fertility and polluted ecosystem, adding to landscape degradation ultimately adding pressure for natural resources. 

‘Their interventions are further pushing Africa’s food system towards a corporatised model of industrial agriculture, diminishing our people’s right to food sovereignty and threatening ecological and human health,’ the faith leaders said. 

They also said interventions shifting localised food models towards mass models ‘diminishes the role that food and its production play in community systems and ignores the significant body of related indigenous wisdom, which is recognised as a key element in climate change adaptation.’ 

‘The focus on entry of the private sector into food and farming systems in Africa weakens resilience and biodiversity by favouring the production of commodity crops. This immediately reduces the value of diversity of crops planted, and thus the diversity of diets.’ 

Bloated costs 

In total, Agra has recieved over $1.5 billion, with Gates mostly backing. Agra spent $115 million, building a food system around sythnetic fertilisers, and was backed with public money from governments across Africa.  

The Gates Foundation originally committed $150 million along with the Rockefeller Foundation to establish Agra. The organisation had promised to halve food insecurity across 20 countries and increase household incomes by 2020. 

Some estimates believe the total cost for input subsidies around $1 billion. Malnourishment remains at one in five people in Agra focused countries, the same as when interventions first began. 

‘Markets can discipline companies that misallocate capital and voters can dismiss unpopular governments — but foundations answer to neither,’ Raj Patel, a member of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems said, writing in the Financial Times. 

‘Agra has published some independent evaluations but cites confidentiality, data protection and partner agreements as limits on releasing other data. Its funders should explain how those findings shape renewed support. Absent these checks, foundations should commit to open data and enforceable performance conditions,’ he said, adding; 

‘Philanthropy is most defensible when it enlarges public possibility, not when private judgment displaces democratic choice. Philanthropists should recognise that the rent due on their moral high ground is accountability.’ 

Shafi Musaddique is the news editor at Alliance magazine 

The post African faith leaders urge Gates Foundation to pay reparations for ecological and social damage  appeared first on Alliance magazine.