Private Philanthropy for Development (Third Edition)

4. Conclusions and way forward

Abstract

This chapter synthesises the main insights from the analysis of philanthropic contributions to development between 2020 and 2023 and offers forward-looking recommendations for foundations, governments, and the wider donor community. It draws on quantitative data, survey responses, and qualitative evidence to identify trends, gaps, and opportunities for action.

4.1. Key findings

The report shed lights on key global trends in the philanthropic sector over 2020-2023. Drawing on data from 506 organisations providing cross-border and domestic philanthropy in low- and middle-income countries, it provides a comprehensive perspective on global philanthropic flows – comparable across time, region, and sector. Furthermore, drawing on data from 105 respondents to the OECD organisational questionnaire, this report unpacks foundations’ strategies and practices across key dimensions shaping contemporary development co-operation, including evidence-based learning, locally led approaches, and co-financing.

4.1.1. Global trends shaping philanthropy for development

Private philanthropic contributions to development reached USD 68.2 billion over 2020‑2023, comprising USD 52.8 billion in cross-border flows and USD 15.4 billion in domestic philanthropic funding. While philanthropy remains modest relative to official development assistance (ODA) – accounting for close to 10% of total ODA – it is growing in scale and influence, particularly in emerging markets such as India, China, and Mexico.

Foundations are increasingly transparent, sharing data on their funding and priorities. This third edition of Private Philanthropy for Development, covering 506 organisations over the 2020-2023 period, builds on a sample of 205 foundations from 2016-2019. Beyond large foundations that report on a regular basis to the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and those reporting directly to the OECD Centre on Philanthropy, data were collected from secondary sources in a selected group of countries where public registries of domestic philanthropy are available, such as Mexico and India (for Corporate Social Responsibility). This edition captures a substantially larger number of foundations operating in China than previous editions, providing valuable insights into China’s domestic philanthropy.

Philanthropic funding to Africa increased from USD 4 billion to USD 4.8 billion annually during 2020-23. Africa received the largest share of total cross-border philanthropy, with USD 17.6 billion (33%). International funding to Africa was provided primarily by the Gates Foundation (36%) and the Mastercard Foundation (26%).

Domestic foundations in emerging markets provide substantial local support. In China, India and Mexico – where accurate and extensive data on activity from domestic private foundations have been collected for this report – domestic philanthropic contributions surpassed cross-border flows. China mobilised USD 8.3 billion in domestic philanthropic funding, accounting for 94% of the country’s total philanthropic contributions; India mobilised USD 4.0 billion (65%), and Mexico USD 2.9 billion (88%). To fully capture philanthropy’s contribution to development, greater efforts are, however, needed to document the growing domestic philanthropic sector in Africa, South-East Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean.

Middle-income countries remained the main recipients of philanthropic financing over 2020-2023. In nominal terms, approximately USD 9.5 billion (40%) of international country-allocable giving was directed to upper middle-income countries, with a similar volume allocated to lower middle-income countries. A smaller share of philanthropic financing was directed to low-income countries, amounting to USD 5 billion (20%) over 2020-23. However, when analysed on a per capita basis, low-income countries were the largest recipients of philanthropic flows (USD 7 per capita), whereas upper middle-income countries received approximately USD 3.4 per capita and lower middle-income countries USD 3.2 per capita.

Private philanthropy remains a key partner and funder in health and education, revealing strong concentration patterns: 40% of total philanthropic flows targeted health, while 11% targeted education. Philanthropy for health exhibits large donor and geographical concentration: 55% of total giving for health came from the Gates Foundation, and 12% targeted regional-wide programmes within Africa. Philanthropic donors are also significant funders of causes and institutions supported by civil society at large, which is the third-largest sector receiving philanthropic funding (7%).

Good health and well-being (SDG 3), partnerships for the goals (SDG 17), and quality education (SDG 4) stood in the forefront of foundations’ contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals.

4.1.2. Alignment and complementarity with ODA

Top sectors for philanthropy – health, education and government and civil society – align with ODA’s top priority sectors. Within health, both ODA providers and (domestic and international) philanthropic donors largely concentrate their funding on infectious disease control (64% and 55% respectively). Against a backdrop of sustained reductions in ODA for health and education from 2023 to 2025 (OECD, 2025[1]), philanthropic support to these sectors may play a growing complementary role, including in leveraging additional resources.

Philanthropic flows and ODA demonstrated complementary roles and priorities in conflict-related and fragile settings. Ukraine was a greater focus for official development assistance providers than for foundations, both in relative and absolute terms. While ODA concentrated more on macro-level governance and budget support (USD 48 billion, 69% of total ODA for Ukraine), philanthropy addressed emergency recovery needs such as material relief and agricultural inputs (USD 281 million, 43% of total philanthropy for Ukraine). When financing in contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility, ODA concentrated on conflict-affected contexts (Afghanistan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Iraq, and Yemen), whereas philanthropy supported other types of fragile states, especially in Eastern Africa – mainly those facing economic and social vulnerabilities. In terms of priority sectors in fragile contexts, ODA was largely directed toward emergency and humanitarian responses – including relief co-ordination and emergency food assistance, while philanthropic funding was more concentrated on the provision of basic services.

Foundations allocated proportionally more resources to gender-specific initiatives than ODA providers, though absolute volumes remain smaller. Gender-specific funding amounted to 8% (USD 5.3 billion) of private philanthropy for development, compared with 2% (USD 14 billion) of total ODA. Philanthropic gender-specific giving was primarily channelled toward sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) (USD 4.2 billion; 81% of gender-specific funding). Foundations also contributed USD 1 billion (19%) in favour of women’s rights organisations and movements.

4.1.3. Inside foundations: Core strategies and inclusive practices

Corporate donations to their respective philanthropic vehicles represent a significant source of funding for many foundations (22% of respondents’ budget in 2023), particularly in low- and middle-income countries (38%), where they accounted for a larger share of budgets than in high-income countries, highlighting the close link between corporate giving and philanthropic financing in these contexts.

Foundations’ use of innovative financial instruments beyond traditional grants remains limited and deployed among high-income countries. A large majority of respondents (87%) reported using grants, alongside matching grants (33%), while few used alternative financial instruments such as loans (19%), equity (16%), equity (16%) or guarantees (9%). Nearly 70% of foundations that reported employing alternative financial instruments were headquartered in high-income economies.

Foundation’s reliance on grant-making appears as a deliberate strategic choice rather than the consequence of insufficient internal capacity/knowledge or diligence concerns over using other tools. It seems foundations deliberately decide to use grants (for 47% of the respondents) but still engage in collaborative financial structures (including blended finance structures) where they can use their capital as leverage. More evidence is required to assess both the scale and modalities of foundations’ involvement in blended finance structures.

Despite growing demands for unrestricted support, foundations tend to prioritise earmarked funding. Unrestricted funding from large foundations remains limited in terms of volumes: only USD 5 billion in philanthropic disbursements went to core support compared with USD 40 billion earmarked for specific projects and programmes over 2020-2023. While there were some shifts toward more flexible funding during the pandemic, they were limited in size and did not fundamentally alter the predominance of earmarked, project-specific funding.

Non-financial support continues to be widespread, in line with a “venture philanthropy” approach. Nearly all foundations (96%) that responded to the OECD organisational questionnaire provided some form of non-financial assistance to grantees. This support spans a wide range of areas, of which the most commonly targeted are access to networks and coalitions of funders (80%), as well as support for monitoring and evaluation, communication, and advocacy (69%). Some respondents were also actively engaged in strengthening their grantees' management capacity (67%).

Gender equality remains largely integrated in philanthropic programming. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (63%) indicated that they finance activities aimed at reducing gender inequalities, as a primary and/or secondary objective. This share was consistent with that of the 2016-2019 OECD organisational survey (OECD, 2021[2]), suggesting stability in the integration of gender policy objectives over time. Furthermore, most respondents sought to advance gender equality through capacity-building initiatives (80%) and the direct provision of services and goods to women and girls (70%).

4.1.4. Foundations as a knowledge partner

Evaluation capacity is growing among foundations, but the rigorous impact testing of programmes remains underutilised. Over half of respondents (54%) reported having a dedicated evaluation role or unit separate from programme departments. This suggests a greater prioritisation of evaluation insights within foundations, in line with Private Philanthropy for Development’s previous recommendation to instil a culture of rigorous evaluation and learning (OECD, 2021[2]). However, the focus remains largely on basic monitoring and reporting tools (83%), rather than on more rigorous evaluation methods such as cost-effectiveness analysis (34%) or randomised controlled trials (17%).

Foundations struggle to conduct rigorous evaluations and turn findings into actionable insights. Most challenging are producing high-quality evaluations (68%), securing reliable outcomes data reporting from partners (65%) and translating results into lessons for policy makers (51%). Limited time and partner capacity emerged as key factors contributing to the challenges in effective monitoring, evaluation, and learning.

Limited transparency is impeding learning about what works best across the philanthropic sector. Philanthropic donors more frequently disclosed general information on their governance (78%) and expenditures (56%) than detailed project-level evaluations (28%) or information on the performance and impact of their giving (17%). While the decision not to disclose evaluation results limits learning opportunities for peers and partners, it is partly due to privacy concerns and a fear of putting grantees at risk (18%).

4.1.5. Enabling locally led development

With budgets for development finance under increasing pressure, building local capacities has become more important than ever. Locally led development (LLD) goes beyond simply transferring resources: it is an ongoing process in which diverse local actors exercise agency across all dimensions of development policy and programmes – including framing, design, delivery, and accountability – within their local contexts (OECD, 2024[3]).

Direct philanthropic funding to local entities remains limited. Over 2020-2023, cross-border philanthropic flows were predominantly channelled through international entities, amounting to USD 40 billion (89%). Most of this funding went to international NGOs, donor-country NGOs and networks (33%), and to multilateral organisations (17%). By contrast, only USD 5 billion in philanthropic flows were channelled through local entities (11%). Of this amount directed to domestic partners, 80% (USD 4 billion) was allocated to recipient-based NGOs. However, spending locally is not the only dimension of locally led development and the OECD organisational questionnaire suggests that over half of respondents (54%) still incorporated a locally led development lens in their work.

Most foundations engaged with local partners – citizens and entities based and operating within the local context of reference – across programming. However, local entities and communities partnering with philanthropies are more often positioned as mere implementers rather than co-creators and learning partners. Local actors were most involved across programme delivery (73%), then design (67%), and least in evaluation (57%).

Operational and administrative constraints, as well as local ecosystem challenges, limited foundations’ ambition to further engage in locally led development. When asked why they did not engage more with the front lines, respondents cited higher transaction costs (32%), complex due diligence processes (26%), limited absorptive capacity among local actors (30%), and difficulties identifying local grantees (23%). Foundations most often cite capacity strengthening for local actors (71%) and programme design (57%) as key pathways for channelling their engagement in locally led development co-operation. Together, these results point to a growing recognition within philanthropy of the value of integrating local stakeholders’ perspectives from the outset, supporting their capabilities, and granting them greater agency in co-designing tailored projects and programmes, even if this is not yet a reality.

Having a local field office can help promote local agency and ownership across programming. According to the organisational survey, locally based staff currently make up close to one-third of positions in foundations’ country offices, spanning all seniority levels from junior to senior roles. They frequently assume additional responsibilities, including programme evaluation (56%), thereby going beyond their traditional focus on implementation.

4.1.6. Collaboration at the core of foundations’ playbook

The pandemic prompted foundations to adopt more flexible grant-making practices and to become more aware of grantees’ needs. The number of respondents adopting simplified reporting standards doubled between the period before 2020 to after 2022, and many continued to use time extensions for existing contracts even after the pandemic (55%). This trend might suggest a gradual shift in grant-making strategies toward greater flexibility over the medium term.

Network mobilisation and expanded collaboration with partners were central to the foundations’ COVID-19 response. Respondents reported that the pandemic led them to broaden their portfolios by launching new projects (29%), whether cross-border or domestic, and to help grantees with additional fundraising by connecting them to other donors within their networks (25%). Furthermore, collaboration extended across multiple stakeholder groups – current and new grantees (34%), other philanthropists (19%), private sector actors (18%), and international NGOs (14%) – suggesting that respondents have broadened their reach within the wider donor ecosystem. Interestingly, partnerships formed during the pandemic more frequently involved domestic government bodies (26%) and local NGOs (24%) than other types of actors. This partnership-based approach allowed foundations to deliver rapid, context-specific responses and to leverage trusted local channels during a period of mobility restrictions and operational uncertainty.

Co-financing is extensive and represents a core operational practice for foundations. Co-financing is very frequent within the sample of foundations reporting to the OECD organisational questionnaire: more than two-thirds (68%) reported collaborating on four or more projects. When analysed by income group, foundations based in lower- and low-middle-income countries were most likely to engage in multiple co‑financing projects: 64% of these foundations reported working on four or more projects, compared to 49% of foundations from higher-income countries. This suggested that organisations in lower- and low-middle-income countries may rely more heavily on collaborative financing models, possibly due to resource constraints that make partnerships essential, or because they are embedded in contexts where pooled funding mechanisms are more established or indispensable for achieving scale.

Foundations engage in co-financing with a broad range of actors across the development ecosystem. Co-financed projects supporting development objectives (i.e. implemented in ODA-eligible countries) were operated alongside with over 300 external partners. These co-financing partners represented a diverse mix of actors across the development landscape: private foundations (for 38% of external partners), private companies (26%) and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (10%). Domestic or local NGOs represented less than 10% of external partners involved in co-financing, showing once more the difficulties foundations face in meeting their commitments on locally led development.

A mix of project modalities underpins co-financing arrangements, with the resulting flows being highly concentrated by sector and region. Direct project implementation emerged as the most prevalent modality in philanthropy, accounting for 56% of projects, followed by contributions to thematic funds (29%) and regional thematic funds (10%). Sectoral distribution was highly concentrated: the top six sectors together accounted for nearly 90% of all co-financing flows. Health dominated with USD 392 million (27% of total co-financing), a substantial portion of which (USD 288 million) supported global or multi-regional programmes. Education ranked second at USD 205 million (14%), with funds distributed across multiple regions. Co-financing flows were also regionally concentrated: LAC accounted for nearly half of total co‑financing (USD 706 million; 49%), followed by global programmes (USD 468 million; 32%). Africa and Asia‑Pacific represented USD 135 million (9%) and USD 114 million (8%), respectively, while Europe accounted for a smaller share (USD 31 million; 2%).

The thematic focus of co‑financing partnerships varies across regions. In Africa and Asia‑Pacific, education emerged as a central area for collaborative investment (accounting for 42% and 56% regional allocations, respectively), whereas it played a far more limited role in LAC and Europe (representing only 7% and 4% regional allocations, respectively). By contrast, environmental protection featured prominently in both Europe and global portfolios (accounting for 55% and 27% regional allocations). In LAC, institutional and financial sectors stood out (representing 75% regional allocations), reflecting the region’s relatively large concentration of high-value projects. Taken together, these variations illustrate that co‑financing differs not only in scale across regions but also in the strategic purposes it serves.

Participation patterns in co-financing arrangements reveal sectoral differences, with the most diverse partnerships found in water, sanitation, and financial services. Across all projects, co‑financing involved an average of two distinct partner types (such as foundations, private companies, NGOs, and development agencies), indicating a moderately diversified collaboration landscape. Water supply and sanitation, as well as banking and financial services, stood out with an average of three partner types per project, the highest levels observed. Social infrastructure and services also displayed elevated diversity (2.95), followed by multisector activities (2.44). Even government and civil society (2.3) and education (2.2) slightly exceeded the overall average. These patterns suggest that sectors requiring technical expertise, regulatory engagement, or complex multi‑stakeholder co-ordination tend to mobilise more heterogeneous co‑financing coalitions.

Regions and sectors show distinct patterns in the size of co‑financing partnerships. Europe recorded the highest average number of collaborating organisations per co-financing project (9) – around 74% above the portfolio average of 5 (including the respondent) – followed by LAC (6.3) and Global programmes (6). Asia‑Pacific (5.3) sat slightly above the overall average, while Africa (5) aligned with it. At the sector level, differences in coalition size were less pronounced for the top five sectors. General environmental protection (7) and government and civil society (7) exhibited the largest coalitions, followed by social infrastructure and services (6.8), multisector (6.8) and education (6.2) – all well above the overall average of 5.

Co‑financing partnerships reveal that some sectors are more locally anchored, while others rely much more on cross‑border collaboration. Multisector projects showed the highest share of partnerships between organisations from the same country (68%), followed by education and social infrastructure (both 56%). In these sectors, collaboration tends to take place among organisations operating within the same national context. By contrast, government and civil society and general environmental protection displayed much higher shares of partnerships involving organisations from different countries (72% and 74%, respectively), indicating that projects in these sectors require international co-operation and multi‑country engagement more often.

Limited awareness among philanthropic donors of one another's objectives continues to constrain the full potential of collaborative funding. The most cited barrier to collaboration was identifying partners – both private philanthropic donors and ODA providers – with aligned interests (39% of respondents). While more foundations now publicly share information on their granting priorities and strategies (69%), further progress is still needed to incentivise and centralise the production, compilation, and aggregation of philanthropic data on granting opportunities. One of the first steps could be to build on existing open-access giving platforms, such as 360Giving in the UK, Philanthropy Data Commons and the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI).

4.2. Recommendations

4.2.1. For foundations

Unlocking and leveraging more diversified and strategic resources for development

Foundations should scale up their role as catalysers of development finance. By engaging in blended finance structures tailored to organisational size and capacity, and by pooling their resources, foundations could leverage philanthropic capital to mobilise additional public and private resources. For example, in December 2025, South Africa launched the world's largest Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) outcomes fund supported by the LEGO Foundation and domestic philanthropic partners. Another example is Education Above All’s partnerships with multilateral development banks, including the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), which employ innovative financing mechanisms to establish multiplier funds. In these arrangements, EAA provides matching grants that complement IDB loans, substantially lowering the overall cost of education investments for recipient countries (UNESCO, 2025[4]). More work is needed to design blended finance vehicles that cater to a wide range of international and domestic philanthropic funders, starting with their needs and constraints in mind, and to understand the actual effectiveness of blended finance structures in mobilising additional resources for development.

Foundations should increase the provision of longer-term, unrestricted funding, particularly for front-line organisations, including community-led and women-led organisations. When context-relevant, they should prioritise core support over project-specific grants to strengthen grantees’ organisational sustainability and enable local systems-change. A new generation of funds – including Co-Impact’s Gender Fund, the END Fund, and various women’s funds or intermediaries – is transforming global support for gender equality and health by providing flexible, unrestricted resources that tackle chronic underfunding while easing administrative burdens for grantees. Evidence on how these funds work and their impact on grantees’ long-term sustainability should be made available to prove the effectiveness of these mechanisms and to support their replication and scaling.

Prioritise sectors and cross-cutting issues in which philanthropy can demonstrate clear added value. Foundations could strategically build on their existing sectoral concentration in areas where philanthropy already demonstrates a competitive advantage and allocates a proportionally higher share of funding than ODA, such as gender-specific initiatives and certain areas of infectious disease control. Rather than attempting to provide comprehensive coverage, which would not be realistic geographically nor thematically, philanthropies should identify strategic niches in which they can act as a catalyst, such as supporting civil society and women’s organisations in politically constrained environments, backing disease-specific initiatives like polio eradication, and piloting innovations – including AI technologies – that are too risky for public funding. Data and evidence should be shared to prove the effectiveness of this approach.

Further engage in funding coalitions with other focus-aligned philanthropies to mitigate volatility in sectors with a high donor concentration and ensure sustained support for critical development priorities. Such coalitions have increasingly been leveraged to channel resources toward underfunded yet critical development priorities, including the health–climate nexus,1 malnutrition,2 maternal health, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and the prevention of gender-based violence.3 Foundations should aim to diversify the number and type of partners they engage with in co-funding. This would help ensure the stability of funding flows amid funding cuts and redeployments.

Building a stronger evidence base for philanthropic action

Increase transparency and deliver more predictable and accountable programming. Foundations should disclose information about their grantees more systematically, including, where possible, through grant and project-level databases. Data on evaluation results from programmes should also be shared more systematically, as already recommended in the second edition of Private Philanthropy for Development. Foundations could also contribute to the Development Evaluation Resource Centre (DEReC),4 an extensive and unique repository of over 4 000 evaluation reports (primarily from development agencies as for now) and regularly updated to facilitate learning and provide evidence of effective practices.

Promote external research partnerships as a pathway to build evaluation capabilities. Given the limited internal and partner capacity to conduct rigorous evaluations, foundations could initially invest in external learning partnerships (e.g. with academia or local-market research consultancies) to provide grantees with adequate support for the design and implementation of their M&E, and then undertake impact evaluations in close collaboration with project teams. Over time, these efforts should also be leveraged to strengthen the research and evaluation capacities of local staff within grantees’ organisations.

Engage and collaborate with government and other development stakeholders to scale up proven solutions. Rather than attempt to scale projects and programmes themselves – which stretches philanthropic resources thin and creates unsustainable dependency – the sector could seek a division of labour: foundations fund innovation, early-stage proof of concept, rigorous testing, while national governments take over delivery and financing at scale once programmes have proven successful. Foundation funding then covers the costly work of rigorous testing, iteration, and the transition period where governments build capacity to deliver the intervention themselves. In practice, scaling partnerships between private actors, philanthropic donors, and government departments have emerged to expand proven learning approaches in schools at the national level, notably in Ghana through the SCALE initiative5 and in Côte d’Ivoire through the Child Learning and Education Facility (CLEF).6

Embed dedicated learning and knowledge-dissemination functions within evaluation or programme teams. Foundations could invest in dedicated learning and knowledge-dissemination roles or focal points within evaluation or programme teams – bridging communication, impact evidence, and programme delivery. These roles can help synthesise key findings across several projects (i.e. beyond individual projects’ results) and translate these findings into accessible, policy-relevant insights that inform debate among practitioners within the sector. As highlighted in the OECD philanthropy organisational questionnaire, translating evaluation results into lessons for policymakers remains a major challenge for foundations.

Further invest in learning and knowledge sharing among philanthropic donors and beyond. To facilitate evidence-based peer learning among foundations, structured spaces and communities of practice should be created and mobilised, grounded in data and evaluation results, extending beyond the small group of large foundations that currently publish such evidence. This can help diffuse learning more broadly across the philanthropic sector and beyond. At the same time, foundations could promote the uptake of rigorous evaluation and learning across the wider development ecosystem by investing in advocacy that demonstrates the value of impact evaluations and cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analyses, and by showcasing how evidence can inform strategic decision-making and improve programme effectiveness.

Strengthening local capacities: Systems and knowledge

Deepen engagement with domestic philanthropic ecosystems. International foundations should engage more systematically with local philanthropic actors, including domestic foundations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean, to co-create solutions, share contextual knowledge, and align efforts with locally identified priorities. Domestic foundations can also play an intermediary role by connecting international funders with local prospect organisations, facilitating trust-based partnerships, and helping to navigate local institutional and regulatory environments.

Improve the transparency and ease of grant-making processes. Foundations should enhance transparency in their funding processes, including by expanding the use of open or rolling calls for proposals – open to a wide range of local partners, including research institutes, NGOs and social enterprises – while clarifying selection criteria and simplifying application and reporting requirements to reduce barriers for local organisations. Foundations could complement traditional requests for proposals by proactively sourcing local grantees. This would allow them to identify innovative solutions emerging from grassroots and movement-based organisations, which are often overlooked by closed or invitation-only approaches, despite these being overwhelmingly used (i.e. on average, 73% of respondents' funding is allocated this way, according to the OECD organisational questionnaire).

Further support the enabling environment for local actors and institutions. Philanthropic actors can contribute to accelerating domestic resource mobilisation (DRM) and help unlock development rooted in local priorities and driven by local institutions, for example, by investing in digital tax platforms and systems that enhance fiscal transparency and government accountability. In addition, philanthropic leaders can play a key role in strengthening and increasing the visibility of domestic giving infrastructure, including community endowment funds, local platforms, and philanthropy networks.

Facilitate the creation and formalisation of collaborative giving vehicles in low- and middle-income countries, leveraging both local resources and expertise alongside international funding. The development of funds, platforms and other intermediary mechanisms can offer more efficient ways to manage due diligence requirements, logistics processes, and risk. As highlighted in the OECD philanthropy organisational questionnaire, operational and administrative constraints remain significant barriers when foundations seek to deepen their engagement in locally led development, underscoring the value of shared and trusted delivery structures.

Professionalise and invest in philanthropic leadership across key markets, including Southeast Asia and Latin America. In early 2026, the Institute of Philanthropy has announced the launch of the Leadership Excellence in Asian Philanthropy (LEAP) Fellowship,7 a pioneering fellowship programme designed to develop the next generation of visionary leaders for Asia’s rapidly evolving philanthropic sector, with a curriculum and design tailored specifically to the cultural, economic, and social realities of the region.

Advance the establishment of (research) partnerships to better understand how global financial hubs can mobilise philanthropic capital and foster social innovation. More ambitious and regionally grounded initiatives are needed to examine the interaction between policy frameworks and philanthropic practice in financial centres, where concentrated wealth meets growing demand for inclusive solutions. For example, in 2025, the Marshal Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and the Institute of Philanthropy announced a strategic partnership to study financial hubs such as Abu Dhabi, London, Hong Kong, New York, and Singapore, providing insights into the intersection of financial infrastructure, regulation and incentives with philanthropy.8

Breaking silos to tackle cross-cutting priorities at both the local and global levels

Facilitate co-design and deployment of context-specific solutions to cross-cutting issues. At the local level, health, gender, education, and climate initiatives are closely connected in practice. As progress across these priorities often depends on who holds decision-making power throughout the programme cycle – including agenda setting, resource allocation, delivery, and accountability – philanthropy should prioritise sustained investment in community-based organisations, supporting indigenous and locally rooted knowledge as a foundation for effective and context-specific solutions.

Scale up philanthropic advocacy and support for multisectoral solutions. As partner communities are typically shaped by interconnected development challenges, there is significant scope for philanthropy to scale up support for solutions that address inequality and advance social justice, which cut across multiple sectors. In addition, education philanthropy can scale up integration of climate considerations across education programmes and engage in sustained dialogue with climate-focused counterparts to identify collaboration opportunities (Boiardi, Stout and Winter, 2025[5]). Likewise, there is an increasing mobilisation of the philanthropic health community around climate issues, reflected in the endorsement of the new guiding principles for financing climate and health solutions (WHO, 2025[6]). However, addressing the health-related impacts of climate change requires a dual focus on mitigation and adaptation. While mitigation strategies are crucial to reducing future risks by lowering greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation efforts help build resilient health systems and protect communities from more immediate climate impacts.

Promote closer alignment between gender and climate finance in philanthropic initiatives. Philanthropies need to strengthen collaboration between gender and climate finance by systematically integrating gender considerations into all major climate finance mechanisms and initiatives. Recent progress, such as the inclusion of gender dimensions in multilateral climate funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF), is encouraging, but further action is needed to break down remaining siloes and fully realise the benefits of co-ordinated approaches.

4.2.2. For governments

Create enabling regulatory and reporting frameworks for domestic philanthropy. Governments should establish incentive-based regulatory and tax environments that support domestic philanthropy and mandate transparent reporting to improve accountability and data availability. This can include requiring the online publication of philanthropic activities in countries with existing annual reporting obligations, as already implemented in the United States, India (for Corporate Social Responsibility) and Mexico. Where mandatory reporting is not in place, regional or national foundation networks can play a complementary role in organising and updating data on philanthropic giving.

Harmonise ESG standards to support sustainable investment of foundations’ endowments. Policy makers and standard-setting bodies should work towards greater harmonisation of ESG compliance standards to ensure that investments made by foundations through their endowments are aligned with sustainability objectives and internationally recognised norms, while reducing fragmentation and compliance burdens for philanthropic actors operating across jurisdictions.

Design and support inclusive blended finance structures. Development finance institutions (DFIs) and public development banks (PDBs) – mandated by national governments – should ensure that the conditions are in place for blended finance vehicles to be accessible to both large and small foundations, with governance and risk-sharing arrangements that enable equitable participation across different types of philanthropic actors. They should also ensure that the enabling conditions are in place for other public actors to blend resources with philanthropies and for philanthropies to engage more with financial solutions and new financing vehicles, including regulation, incentives, and technical assistance.

Support and partner with universities and think tanks to increase research and knowledge around innovative finance and the role that philanthropy can take to scale such partnerships. The challenge is that current blended finance vehicles primarily serve a limited group of large foundations. Evidence on philanthropic engagement in blended finance remains scarce, and more research is needed to identify how such mechanisms could become feasible, accessible, and appealing to donors of varying sizes and in different regions, as well as to understand the scale and forms of their participation.

4.2.3. For the wider donor community: ODA providers and other public or private stakeholders

Further engage in blended finance solutions between philanthropies and public development banks to scale up SDG-aligned investments in emerging and underfunded economies. Donors should foster partnerships among philanthropy, multilateral development banks, development finance institutions and the private sector to move successful innovations beyond pilot stages, particularly in underfunded regions. Structuring collaborative approaches for PDBs and philanthropies to engage and scale their potential requires concerted and targeted action on both sides. The creation of collaboration fora encouraging stronger links and awareness building is also critical.

Support match-making platforms to channel the various blended finance opportunities to development actors, making it easier for these to find appropriate philanthropic and private sector partners, while having a more agile flow of information.

4.2.4. Looking ahead

Philanthropy is not a substitute for ODA, but it can make smaller volumes of public or private resources go further by catalysing innovation, leveraging additional resources, and promoting locally led solutions. To maximise its impact, philanthropy must embrace flexibility, transparency, and collaboration – while governments and donors create enabling environments that unlock its full potential. The next decade offers an opportunity to move from fragmented efforts to systemic change, ensuring that philanthropic capital contributes meaningfully to global public goods and sustainable development.

References

[5] Boiardi, P., E. Stout and A. Winter (2025), “Philanthropy, education and climate change: Trends in low- and middle-income countries”, OECD Development Centre Working Papers, No. 358, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4e2cd8f7-en.

[1] OECD (2025), Cuts in official development assistance: OECD projections for 2025 and the near term, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8c530629-en.

[3] OECD (2024), Pathways Towards Effective Locally Led Development Co-operation: Learning by Example, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/51079bba-en.

[2] OECD (2021), Private Philanthropy for Development – Second Edition: Data for Action, The Development Dimension, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdf37f1e-en.

[4] UNESCO (2025), Not business as usual: Innovative ways to fund education, https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/not-business-usual-innovative-ways-fund-education (accessed on 5 January 2026).

[6] WHO (2025), Guiding Principles on Financing Climate and Health Solutions, https://www.who.int/news/item/02-12-2023-41-funders--partners-endorse-new-guiding-principles-for-financing-climate-and-health-solutions-to-protect-health (accessed on 30 January 2026).

Notes

← 1.  See https://www.qc.foundation/news-and-research/Global-philanthropies-commit-300m/.

← 2.  See https://ciff.org/uncategorized/global-philanthropic-partners-announce-more-than-2-billion-in-funding-for-malnutrition/.

← 3.  See https://www.iconiqcapital.com/impact/insight/whc-co-lab-launch.

← 4.  See https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/dac-evaluation-resource-centre---derec.html.

← 5.  See https://www.clefcoalition.com/en/welcome/.

← 6.  See https://jacobsfoundation.org/the-jacobs-foundation-announces-scale-a-landmark-initiative-to-transform-education-in-ghana/.

← 7.  See https://www.povertyactionlab.org/updates/institute-philanthropy-launches-leap-fellowship-strengthen-philanthropy-leadership-across.

← 8.  See https://www.lse.ac.uk/marshall-institute/news/research-partnership-to-identify-how-philanthropy-powers-financial-hubs-for-maximum-impact.