Why is philanthropic collaboration so difficult? Much is said about collaborating, but much less is done in practice, it seems. This is true even in the face of the complexity of the issues that philanthropy addresses, the increasing push for community partnerships, and the additional leverage to be had from funding and working cooperatively. Foundations in general are reluctant to co-fund, and unwilling to cede their control over strategy and allocation of their funds.
This is not unique to Canada. Collaboration among foundations across the world is not common. Collaboration across sectors is even rarer. Why is this the case? Three networks for philanthropy have partnered to study the barriers to philanthropic collaboration. The result of their analysis is summarized in a new report Building Foundations for Collaborative Transformation co-authored by WINGS , the global network for philanthropy, Philea, the European foundation network, and The Partnering Initiative, a UK nonprofit dedicated to professionalizing the practice of collaboration.
From June to December 2024, the three partners conducted a needs analysis involving over fifty foundations across the world through a survey, interviews and workshops. These foundations ranged from small to large and from family to corporate. A couple were Canadian; most of the others were European, South American or Asian. Most had an interest in partnership and therefore were eager to participate. The study sponsors note that this might lead to an overrepresentation of foundations already engaged in collaboration, but the researchers feel that their practice aligns with a growing interest across the philanthropic field.
So, what did all this research reveal? Unsurprisingly, the surveyed foundations report that they have confidence in their partnerships with community organizations and with other funders. But cross-sectoral collaboration is rarer. They have much less confidence and less engagement in collaborations with the private sector or government. More significant are the institutional barriers to collaboration, especially collaboration intended to bring about systemic or transformational change. Most foundations are not structured for effective long-term collaboration for systems change. They don’t have the mindset, the staff skills, the investment flexibility or the ability to understand or track progress towards such change. Indeed, they would say that this is not their mission. But for those who believe that private philanthropy must respond to the systemic economic, environmental and social disruptions that we face, the need for a collaborative approach is pressing.
How to meet this pressing need? How to become “institutionally fit for partnering “as the report puts it. Based on the responses of participating foundations, it appears that the gap is primarily in operational and implementation capabilities. The will is there but the way is not. “While foundations increasingly recognise the value of partnerships at leadership levels,” says this report, “many have yet to translate this commitment into the practical tools, training, and incentive structures needed for implementation”. Foundations interested in collaboration must reconsider their internal practices (funding cycles, application and reporting requirements, staff training and incentives etc). They may also need to invest externally to build enabling environments for collaboration, such as sector infrastructure, technical assistance to partners, and regulatory policy change. And they may need to reconsider their funding strategies to take a more active role in convening, creating and sustaining collaborative structures for themselves and their partners.
One such collaborative structure is co-funding. This is a structure that is still not widely used, for many of the reason cited above. Nevertheless, done well, it is an important way in which to leverage philanthropic funds. A recent piece by Nick Grono, the CEO of an American collaborative fund, the Freedom Fund, suggests how to set up a collaborative fund effectively. He cites three different types of collaborative funds: single donor-driven; funder co-created; and community-led. Canadian philanthropy has seen examples of all three types, many of them developed only in the last decade. In the environmental sector, the Clean Economy Fund has been operating for several years now to draw environmental funders together around the goal of a transition to cleaner energy. The Ivey Foundation has been an important driver of this collaborative fund, joined by other foundations such as Trottier. An example of funder co-creation is the Workforce Funder Collaborative, bringing together funders in the Greater Toronto Area to support workforce innovators. Two examples of community-led funder collaboratives are the Foundation for Black Communities (also cited by Grono) and the Indigenous Peoples Resilience Fund, both supported but not led by private funders.
Grono is obviously a fan of collaborative funds. But he cautions that there aren’t enough examples of how to establish these funds or platforms for matching funders with interesting fund opportunities. He wants a more systematic approach. In his view, “by sharing more openly about the origin stories of highly impactful funds, and by fostering more structured pathways to fund formation, philanthropists can ensure collaborative funding models thrive”.
The Gates Foundation has led work in this area and shared many lessons learned. The Bridgespan Group has provided much data and evidence. So, we do know more now about how to foster collaboration and overcome barriers to practice. As a new generation of practitioners rises to leadership in Canadian and global philanthropy, I expect to see an acceleration in collaboration that reflects a new understanding of how private philanthropy can increase its impact. In five years’ time, the question for foundation leaders to ask themselves will be “why aren’t we involved in a collaborative”, rather than “why should we go beyond our own organizational walls?”
Postcript: A Summer Philanthropy Bookshelf
For those who want to spend some of their summer reading more about collaboration in philanthropy or other philanthropic topics, check out my reviews of philanthropy books over the years, with links to be found here.
In early May I visited one of the most beautiful places in Canada, Fogo Island, Newfoundland. It is truly a distinctive place, with welcoming communities, stirring scenery and a long and meaningful history of human settlement. But over and above these attractions, Fogo Island features an extraordinary experiment in place building, led by the philanthropist Zita Cobb, the builder of the Fogo Island Inn and founder of the charitable organization Shorefast. For almost two decades, Zita Cobb has pursued a vision of creating “prosperous economies that serve people, nature and culture in local places”. Since 2004, Zita Cobb and her brothers, all born on Fogo Island, have been on a mission to build economic and cultural resilience on the island. Zita has not only built a world-renowned luxury inn on Fogo but has also helped to create a contemporary arts residency program, a local textile and woodworking social enterprise and many other economic development spin offs to support the resiliency of the Island’s economy. In doing so she has created a model for the application of philanthropic and private capital to helping Canadian communities and places flourish.
Zita Cobb’s thinking about philanthropic capital and its role in place-building has always gone beyond her investments on Fogo Island. The work of Shorefast, the organization she created, is to build, learn and share models of economic development that activate the assets of local places. In 2021, the Shorefast Institute for Place-Based Economies launched a Community Economies Pilot with four other Canadian communities which identified four levers to strengthen community economies: attract and retain financial capital; access and leverage data; build local capacity; and create architectures for collaboration. In 2022, the Shorefast Institute published a program agenda for supporting community economies with concrete suggestions for activating these four levers. As it points out, “the project of strengthening community economies is an urgent national priority that can be one part of the toolkit in addressing the many overlapping crises we face.” This is even more true in 2025 as we face a potentially much worse threat to our economic future.
While this agenda is important for governments and private capital, philanthropic capital also has a role to play. Canadian philanthropists and foundations are already working on building social capital and reinforcing social cohesion. Many of them appreciate the importance of building strong bonds within communities through civic and democratic engagement. But, like many government policy makers, foundations tend to think vertically about issues – health care, food security, mental illness and addiction, green space and housing – and lack a framework for investing in horizontal place-based strategies to deal with a set of interrelated problems in community. This is admittedly difficult to do and arguably it is not in the mandate of foundations to lead the way in funding broad-based community development strategies. Nevertheless, foundations can take advantage of the deep knowledge already available through literature and practice around place based and community economic development. Shorefast’s research and pilots build on the work of many other Canadian thought leaders – the Coady Institute and its work on asset-based community development; the Tamarack Institute and its work with Vibrant Communities; Social Capital Partners; the Canadian Urban Institute, and others.
Many of these organizations are supported by philanthropy. Foundations such as McConnell, Maytree, Metcalfe, Atkinson, and community foundations across Canada have invested in place-based initiatives to strengthen local communities, whether urban or rural. Newer foundations such as NorthPine and Definity, in addition to Shorefast, are choosing to invest in communities as a priority. But they are not being guided by a common framework around their community investments.
If philanthropic funders took as a frame the four levers of capital, capacity, data and architecture for community collaboration, they would be guided by what the research suggests are the most essential elements to thriving in place. Too many foundations focus only on the social and cultural aspects of thriving community. The vertical silos that divide social and industrial policy in government are mirrored in philanthropy which often limits itself to meeting social needs (poverty, illness, food security, etc) rather than strengthening economic assets. Developing strategies to combat community loneliness, isolation, poverty and inequality cannot be divorced from building capability for entrepreneurship, training, and civic infrastructure.
Philanthropic capital can be deployed in many ways to strengthen communities: through investments in financial instruments such as community bonds, mortgages, and community finance funds; through direct impact investments in social enterprises and housing trusts; through grants to collect data, train community leaders and provide support to community dialogues and tables (such as the support to neighbourhood tables provided through the Collective Impact Project in Montreal). I would suggest that philanthropy also can be more urgently and effectively deployed in two areas that are underfunded by other sources of capital: knowledge building, and advocacy for regulatory and policy change. Shorefast itself provides a model for investing in knowledge building both within communities and across sectors. By sponsoring research, convening dialogues, and creating or repurposing spaces in community for dialogue, philanthropic funders can support community voice and consensus-building, and bring business and government decision-makers and investors to the community table. Philanthropy can also fund the development of policy solutions and support advocacy for those solutions to be adopted, in collaboration with community leaders. Many legal and regulatory policies could be reformed for example to support more community investment in local assets and to facilitate creative philanthropic capital deployment to communities.
When I left Fogo Island, Zita Cobb gave me the gift of a beautifully crafted wooden doorstop, made in a Fogo Island workshop. She reminded me that if we hold doors open to each other across our country, “we can do a lot, if we do it together.” Philanthropy can play that invaluable role of holding doors open for citizens, businesses and governments to come together to strengthen community, if we are bold enough.
We are living today in a world shaped by conflict. And conflict makes philanthropists uncomfortable. This is not unique to them. In practice, individual aversion to conflict often leads to organizational avoidance of intervention in conflict, whether the organization is a company, a non-profit or a foundation. It is a rare foundation that takes on any effort to mediate conflict directly once it starts.
De-escalation of conflict is for the common good. Therefore, it should be within philanthropy’s mandate. Yet it is rare that funding is directed to specific initiatives to prevent or de-escalate conflict. A 2019 survey found that peace-related global grantmaking comprised less than one percent of all grants.
Why are foundations reluctant to support conflict de-escalation or peacebuilding? Some argue that this kind of grantmaking means taking a political stance. Others say that it is too difficult to do, too hard to measure, beyond their field of expertise. This might be true. But it could also be a definitional issue.
Broadly speaking, if conflict is defined as inter-state violence, or war, there isn’t much that foundations can do to prevent or resolve it directly. Yet before there is war, there are factors that build to war - religious or inter-communal tensions and polarization, inequality, poverty, injustice or social isolation.
Can foundations engage in preventing conflict and build peace through efforts to build social cohesion and strengthen civil society infrastructure so that the chances of outright conflict are decreased? Of course. In this way of looking at engaging with conflict, there are multiple models and resources available to Canadian philanthropy.
Mark Malloch-Brown, former President of the Open Society Foundations, in a thoughtful 2024 speech on philanthropy’s role, argued that “those of us in the philanthropic sector need to concentrate not just on peace-building among elites, but on building the long-term civic and interpersonal foundations for lasting peace…. philanthropists need to be a force against complacency, speaking out against assumptions that unresolved conflicts can be merely contained and in favor of deep investments in their resolution.”
Endowed philanthropy has some important advantages in resolving conflict. As Mark Malloch-Brown puts it, “foundations can move very fast to respond to a crisis or opportunity. But we also have sticking power, the ability to invest in causes whose results are measured not in months but in decades. We can be both patient and urgent.” The capacity for nimbleness coupled with the ability to take the long view give foundations a unique organizational advantage. To deploy that advantage, they need to pick their field of action and their most effective strategies for operating in that field.
Human conflict takes many forms: conflicts of ideas and values, interpersonal conflicts, inter-community conflicts and inter-state conflicts. Strategies for dealing with these conflicts can be direct -mediation, structured dialogues, collaborative problem-solving – or indirect - promoting inclusion and reconciliation, countering misinformation, human rights education, narrative change. These strategies are explicitly framed around defusing or preventing conflict, much of it interpersonal or intercommunal.
Some Canadian foundations have cautiously entered this space. Few foundations will act as mediators or dialogue facilitators directly. But they do fund organizations that engage in this work. Teaching mediation skills, combatting discrimination and racism, supporting public interest media and journalism, promoting human rights education and training are all activities that reduce or prevent conflict, as a direct or indirect outcome.
For example, the Brian Bronfman Family Foundation has committed itself to building harmonious relationships within communities in Canada, working through the Peace Network for Social Harmony and supporting Equitas, the leading Canadian human rights training organization. The Law Foundations in every province and territory of Canada fund community mediation, restorative justice and dispute resolution efforts. The Canadian Race Relations Foundation grants to organizations across the country working towards reconciliation and against racism. In the field of narrative change, the Inspirit Foundation does groundbreaking work to build new narratives to counter Islamophobia. And it has joined with Philanthropic Foundations Canada to promote more philanthropic investment in public interest journalism.
Many more foundations in Canada are willing to work upstream well before conflict develops. Conflict prevention itself is not an explicit goal for these foundations. Whether they take a place-based or community-centred approach, or they focus more broadly on systemic/policy change, they want to support community resilience and cohesion, combat social exclusion and injustice, and reduce the potential for conflict.
Many foundations are focused on the conditions which make it easier for communities and individuals to tip into conflict. Philanthropic strategies focused on building social cohesion and democratic or community empowerment have a strong connection to conflict prevention, even if it is not explicit. Examples of this include philanthropic investments in civic infrastructure such as parks, libraries, theaters and community centres. These are essential places where people can gather, learn, exchange, and engage positively with each other.
Other examples of more systemic interventions are structured community dialogues, such as the Collective Impact Project in Montreal, funded by foundations to build community capacity to fight poverty and social exclusion, or the Tamarack Institute which is working on a strategy to build a sense of belonging in communities across Canada as a way to help them thrive.
In the end, one could argue that all philanthropic efforts to build a fairer society with more informed, more empowered and engaged members, will create conditions for the reduction or prevention of conflict. Philanthropy’s advantages of time, patience, and sustainable funding may not directly affect the outcomes of wars. But as Malloch-Brown argued, philanthropy can contribute meaningfully to peace over the longer term, by investing in building skills for human relationship and connection and in efforts to create the conditions for civic engagement and community dialogue. These are peace-building investments we need more than ever to give us hope in a time of conflict.
We hear a lot of noise in philanthropy right now. This is especially true In the United States. It’s the noise of calls for funders to step up, spend more, rescue programs, fill gaps, support legal action and advocacy, help a civil society under siege, “meet the moment”. The U.S. federal government is making noise about threatened investigations of large endowments, calls to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, threats against expression of opinion and the rights of refugees. Sorting through this noisy onslaught, the foundation sector in the U.S. is beginning to respond with commitments to increase funding, to commit to funding advocacy and multi-year grants and to speak out for the freedom to give.
In Canada too, the noise around the slipping economy is increasing. Inevitably, much of the noise focuses on financial fears, as charities in Canada report that donations are declining, costs are rising and reserves are exhausted. The threat to Canada’s economy from U.S. actions will only worsen these real concerns.
The noise around financial vulnerability will keep people focused on the amount and pace of foundation spending. There are calls now which will grow louder, for Canada’s 11,500 foundations to give more than the $16 billion they do spend (according to 2023 CRA). This raises a familiar debate about perpetuity versus spend down. Critics argue for an increase in the mandatory payout from 5% of assets to 7% or even 10%, and time limits on the existence of endowments. Others argue that foundations must maintain their capital to play their best role as needed social investors for the long term, however long that is.
But is there a signal being lost in all the noise about money and whether it is being spent fast enough and in sufficient quantity?
This signal is what foundations need to pay attention to. Underlying the argument about money is an argument about what foundations themselves are for. What is their role in a capitalist economy and liberal democracy? The underlying signal is the questioning of philanthropic legitimacy.
There is fragile public support for the foundation model. While direct attacks on foundations in Canada have been rare, the growing size of philanthropic endowments over the past few years is making them more visible. As stresses over inequality increase, so too will suspicion of wealth, even wealth held for charitable purpose and for public benefit. The lack of transparency by most private foundations in Canada leaves them open to this suspicion. In the U.S. opinion polls show support for regulating higher spend rates of endowments and possibly removing tax incentives provided to foundation donors if they don’t show themselves to be more accountable. While a US opinion poll does not predict or reflect Canadian views, this does not mean that Canadian philanthropy should not take advantage of this opportunity to react.
David Callahan, the editor of Inside Philanthropy in the US, has raised concerns about philanthropy’s vulnerability to public attack, pointing out that “public support for philanthropy’s current practices is weak”. He suggests that foundations pay more attention to the need to demonstrate their value to society. Callahan argues that “philanthropy needs to better understand how deep currents of isolation, loneliness, alienation and anxiety have greatly complicated the work of social change. It’s not enough for institutions to solve problems and demonstrate results. What’s also needed is the articulation of a broader vision of human flourishing and the good life that people can believe in.”
How can/should/must philanthropy respond to this signal? What can foundations do to demonstrate their contribution to a more flourishing society? Focusing on the money is not the only answer. Focusing on what the money is being spent on and how it is spent may be as important. Foundations can help create a more flourishing society by increasing people’s sense of belonging, empowering civic voice, reducing polarization and conflict by listening and by directing their help to those who are working to change systems of inequality. And, in Canada’s current situation, foundations can take the opportunity to demonstrate how their work contributes to a stronger country.
This will mean reviewing assumptions, practices and roles as well as adjusting or renewing strategies. Michele Fugiel Gartner of Philanthropic Foundations Canada offers some valuable suggestions for Canadian foundations that are pondering their internal and external actions in this moment. Based on her reflections and those of others, here is my list of ways in which foundations might respond to the legitimacy signal. These can be considered independently of each other but are also mutually reinforcing.
Civil society is under attack in the United States. How does this affect Canadian funders? The calls for support are multiplying. Some of the work that Canadian funders support, whether it is international aid or scientific research, is being demolished. But funders here may feel that they or their partners in Canada won’t come under direct fire. Should they anticipate any differently?
In a prescient article from May 2024, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace suggested that U.S. civil society organizations will face legal and political intimidation tactics that are similar to those used to harass and silence civil society in Hungary, India and other authoritarian democracies. In anticipation, the Carnegie Endowment put together some notes to guide U.S. civil society groups and foundations in defending against present and future attacks. Carnegie was ringing an alarm well before the election of the current Trump administration, saying that it was important to take measures to strengthen and enable civil society to survive and fight back. And it put the onus on funders to do more to support civil society defense, whether through rapid response grants to counter targeted legal attacks or more broadly to support sector network voices and narratives.
While we in Canada don’t expect direct attacks from an authoritarian government, is it a good idea for Canadian funders to remain oblivious? Authoritarian attacks outside of our borders can influence our own political discourse and intimidate civil society even if there no signs of government antipathy. This suggests that philanthropic funders might take time now to consider the impact of possible restrictions on civic space in Canada. It’s true that we have seen over the last decade some positive developments in federal rules governing public policy dialogue and development by charities. Yet there is a continuing reluctance on the part of charities to engage in such activity, mostly for lack of resources but also because of lingering worry that charities are not permitted to “advocate” for policy change. A July 2024 report from the Carleton Charities Insights Canada Project documents this clearly. Many charities rely on their umbrella or intermediary organizations to do the advocacy work for them. But these organizations are perennially short of funding. There is no guarantee that a change in government will not return us to more constraints on the ability of charities and nonprofits to speak out. Is the charitable sector limiting its own freedom of expression even before such explicit restrictions might be re-imposed?
The Carnegie Endowment notes that “restrictions on civil society and individuals’ right to organize and advocate freely have been defining features of the global democratic recession that has engulfed all regions of the world over the past two decades.” So, what can be learned from the responses of civil society organizations and their funders in other parts of the world? Carnegie lists some valuable lessons:
What can funders do beyond supporting these strategies through funding toolkits, trainings and other information? Carnegie underlines the importance of greater collaboration and standing together for threatened civil society organizations. The role of network organizations in coordinating these efforts cannot be underestimated. Carnegie suggests that funders “support greater coordination and knowledge-sharing by resourcing cross-issue working groups, convenings, and resource platforms focused on threats to civic space.” Organizations in Canada such as Philanthropic Foundations Canada, Community Foundations of Canada, Imagine Canada, Environment Funders Canada and regional networks such as the Ontario Nonprofit Network and the Alberta Nonprofit Network serve this important function of coordinating positions, monitoring legislation and law, and building positive narratives for the sector. There is much for Canadian funders to do that will strengthen nonprofits and their networks in confronting current or future pressures on their right to speak and act freely on issues where they have expertise. A diversity of voices will always be critical to a healthy democracy in a strong and independent country.
Canada is under extreme pressure in the era of Trump. Our independence is being called into question in a way that has not happened for many decades, if not centuries. Our political and economic stability is being turned upside down. And Canadians are rising to the challenge of the moment with declarations of patriotism and defiance. As many are saying, this is a moment when we need to consider defending our nation through nation-building actions. This means investing smartly and rapidly in our hard and soft assets: our resources, our built infrastructure, our brains and skills, our media, our cultural identity.
Does philanthropy have a role in nation-building? Or is it best for philanthropy to focus its resources on “bailing out” organizations most hurt by the upheavals we anticipate? Private philanthropy in the U.S. is feeling both pressure and expectation to step in when government funding of social justice or climate or international development work is cut. This may well be felt to a lesser extent in Canada. There is urgency. The cuts mean real harm to people in the short term. And the response of philanthropy during the pandemic provides a precedent for stepping up and helping. But can philanthropy fill the gap? Is this the best use of scarce philanthropic dollars (and they are scarce compared to public dollars)?
Vinod Rajasekeran at Future of Good has argued that bailout philanthropy, as he describes it, should not simply be about rescuing organizations but also seizing the opportunity for future building. I agree. He suggests that philanthropic dollars, if deployed for rescue, should aim not to maintain a status quo but to make it better. Again, I agree. Private funders can use this opportunity to strengthen the operations of key partner organizations.
Funders can also accelerate their long-term investments in Canada’s future. Many in Canadian philanthropy has made this their strategy for decades. Here are some examples:
And I haven’t touched on many other philanthropic investments being made to strengthen our country. What this tells us is that philanthropy is already playing a strategic role in helping to build some of Canada’s most important hard and soft assets.
Are there still gaps in our nation-strengthening efforts? Yes. Could philanthropy do more and faster? Yes. This is a moment for private philanthropy to think even harder about the necessary long-term investments in creating a stronger Canada. Perhaps foundations will need to talk about aligning their efforts more systematically, since nation-building requires coordination and concentration. The relatively scarce resources of foundations will go farther when applied together. And this is not a matter simply of higher disbursements. The current 5% disbursement quota is a floor not a ceiling. Foundations can and do exceed it. Calling for more disbursements isn’t a strategy without a systematic approach to building stronger organizations and investing in a stronger country. Future-building is well within philanthropy’s mission. I predict we will see more of it in response to today’s Trumpian geopolitics.
Here we are…beginning 2025. Still getting over 2024. And I thought that 2023 was a roller coaster year with more downs than ups! In January 2024, I was apprehensive but hopeful about what might happen to foundations and philanthropy in Canada. At the beginning of 2025 I am feeling perhaps more apprehension than hope.
Am I seeing the same things that others are seeing? I have looked around for predictions and guesses about what 2025 will bring (although I am not commenting on the political and economic front, important as that will be in Canada this coming year). I have listened to a few keen observers on philanthropic trends in the US and UK. Here are the most often mentioned and most worrying trends and concerns they express across borders:
On the more hopeful side:
As in 2024, I won’t make predictions for philanthropy (who can?) but I will suggest some wishes and worries without rating their likelihood of coming true.
In 2025, I wish that…funders will respond creatively to the pressures on civil society
I worry that…some of the risks I saw in early 2024 will become even greater
In what will be a turbulent year, let’s hope that foundations will be anchors of steadiness for many civil society organizations and leaders. Something we can all hold on to!
In 2021, Eric St-Pierre, the Executive Director of the Trottier Family Foundation of Montreal, made a simple but striking statement to me as I was interviewing him for my book on Canadian foundations, From Charity To Change: “If we don’t figure out climate, nothing else matters”.
A major recent announcement from the Foundation demonstrates how seriously it takes this idea.
“We are at a pivotal moment in the fight against climate change, with only a limited window to mobilize the capital necessary to meet this generational challenge. In response, we are increasing our grant allocations and partially spending down our endowment to support the charities and initiatives working to advance net-zero pathways in Canada.”
The Trottier Foundation made this announcement in collaboration with eight other private foundations and donors who are committing $405 million as Climate Champions, “the largest philanthropic contribution to climate solutions in Canadian history”. These foundations and donors are hoping to catalyze commitments by other donors to action on climate, in the face of a low funding commitment by the philanthropic community so far. The effort to galvanize climate philanthropy is coordinated through a platform, the Clean Economy Fund, a pooled fund established some years ago by the Ivey Foundation, a long-time philanthropic donor to climate action, which has made its own galvanizing commitment to spend all of its endowment by 2027.
The funds being committed are important. Indeed, they triple the amount of philanthropic dollars committed to climate philanthropy according to the Clean Economy Fund. But how will they be deployed? The CEF identifies five areas where philanthropic dollars can have the most impact: clean energy and electrification; industry and economy; cities; policy and finance; and people and democracy. Each of the donors who have collectively committed $405 million will fund climate action across one or more of these areas.
If you look deeper into the five areas, the money is being spread across them based on the distribution of the limited dollars committed so far. But how much is going to funding for “people and democracy”, described by Climate Champions as “support for the populations who are at disproportionate risk or face more costs because of climate change”? This includes Indigenous communities, rural communities and low-income urban communities. It’s not clear how much is going to this area. And this takes us to the question of Canadian philanthropy’s role in climate justice.
Does philanthropy have a special role and obligation to work on the consequences of climate change through climate justice? A new publication (in French) from the Fondation de France focuses on the challenges faced by philanthropy in supporting a just transition. As the Fondation de France argues, the climate crisis has multiple dimensions: socioeconomic, democratic, geopolitical. To be effective, philanthropy must take a systemic view of how many factors are playing into ever-increasing carbon emissions and ever more catastrophic climate impacts. This seems daunting. One answer for systemic philanthropic action is to work more closely with people on the ground, in communities, who are trying to change their own circumstances and environments.
What does this mean in practice? Philea, the European philanthropy network, underlining the existential urgencies and the growing public distrust in how established institutions are dealing with the social, economic and environmental crisis, puts it this way: “This means working in partnership with other sectors to bring marginalised and vulnerable groups into decision-making processes about land use and environmental policy. It means taking steps to fundamentally shift the priorities within the capitalist system, positioning sustainability as a primary and non-negotiable objective, rather than continuing the unrestrained exploitation of natural resources for profit. And as part of these efforts, it means fostering a balanced dialogue that acknowledges past injustices, including the dispossession of Indigenous lands, and seeks to respect both communities and the environment moving forward.”
How to do this in Canada? One way is through collaborative work to extend philanthropic dollars. Another is to work more closely with intermediaries who direct the funds into grassroots and community-led climate action. An example of this in the United States is The Solutions Project, created in 2013 with the contributions of many funders and now largely funding women of colour-led frontline organizations working on climate justice. In Canada, we have the opportunity to fund many organizations working with Indigenous communities directly on climate solutions, such as Nature United, MakeWay, and the NWT Project Finance for Permanence. Philanthropy can fund research and policy on the development of natural climate solutions, in many cases stewarded by Indigenous and rural communities across Canada. We also have funder platforms working on climate solutions at the grassroots such as Small Change Fund, and funders supporting young environmental activists through The Starfish Canada, and AquaAction. Environment Funders Canada is supporting the Building Power for Climate and Nature Collaborative for funders interested in prioritizing equitable engagement, empowering grassroots, and strategic grant-making.
These are just some ways in which Canadian funders are beginning to come together to support “people and democracy” in the effort to act on the climate crisis. The Climate Champions are telling us that even more is needed. Philanthropists must ask themselves the searching question of how to apply those dollars? What is Canadian philanthropy’s best role and use in this crisis? The answer may be to weigh even more heavily the funds towards actions that empower people and communities.
I often get insights from the blogs written by the ever-thoughtful Phil Buchanan of the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP). Phil’s most recent blog reflects on two difficult questions for philanthropy in these polarized times. How to defend and nurture democracy? How to bridge differences of opinion? He swiftly notes that he doesn’t have answers. But he has thoughts, which sparked some of my own.
The two questions are related. And while we are not going through a heated federal election campaign in Canada as is happening in the US, some of the same concerns may arise when we do. As Phil points out, democracy is not simply about having a safe and accessible voting experience, it is about feeling empowered as a well-informed citizen to have a voice and to be free to express a view. In a democracy, citizens should be able to engage in debate with others who don’t share the same views. At the same time, people need to believe that debate will not be overtaken by extremist viewpoints, or that productive discussion will become impossible because it is not based on agreed facts or premises.
Phil believes that donors or funders should care about protecting the space within which democratic debate can take place. He isn’t prescribing how that might happen. But he raises an interesting choice for funders around “when to bridge or when to fight”. By this he means when to try to understand or perhaps persuade, and when to oppose or forcefully counter what is simply wrong. He notes “on the one hand, we won’t make any progress if we just engage with those with whom we already agree — as so many do. But, on the other hand, we don’t want to normalize extremism by platforming or legitimating it. So how do we get it right?”
It's an important question, and not an easy choice. But it assumes that funders are considering it in the first place. And that funders are willing to act as, or to fund, bridgers and battlers. For many Canadian charitable funders, the response to this is to “stay out of it”. This means not just staying out of public debate but not even convening or holding space for debate, let alone funding the capacity of others to engage in debate. Only a small number of Canadian foundations make public statements about policy questions; fund policy advocacy work by charities; convene public discussions on policy issues; fund public interest journalism, or policy movements/coalitions/networks advocating on behalf of an issue or group of charities.
Why the reticence, at this moment when it seems so important to counter the negative statements and untruths of social media, and to encourage active and positive citizen participation?
There could be several reasons. Are Canadian charities and foundations still inhibited by government regulation that discourages what used to be described as “political” activities? Is policy work not part of a philanthropic mission? Is it not credible or too risky for foundations to fund advocacy efforts or to support democratic infrastructure such as public interest media? Do foundations lack resources or expertise or tools to convene or contribute opinions? Foundations have suggested all or any of the above.
On the question of whether government rules inhibit charities from engaging in public policy related activities, we know that the rules were made significantly less constraining in 2018 when the federal government changed the Income Tax Act, removed a reference to “political” activities and replaced it with the term “public policy dialogue and development” activities which can be counted as activities in pursuit of a charitable purpose. Yet it seems that this has not changed the behaviour of many charities. The Charity Insights Canada Project at Carleton University has surveyed charity leaders to understand how they are adapting to the new rules. As summarized by Prof Susan Phillips and Dr. Kim Nguyen in a recent article reporting on the results of the survey, “most Canadian charities do not engage in advocacy and there has been little change in the five years since the regulations were relaxed.”
According to the survey, many charities (and their funders) do not think that policy dialogue and advocacy are relevant to their missions. Many don’t have the time or expertise to engage directly. The rule change has not been sufficient to stimulate more engagement. Phillips and Nguyen conclude that “the organizational, funding and sector environments in which charities operate implicitly shape strategic decisions to avoid policy participation… For all the talk about trust-based philanthropy, funders, including governments, foundations and individual donors, spark fears that being activist will result in lost support. The lack of coordination and collaboration by the sector itself further inhibits policy engagement. The charitable sector could help itself by sharing information about charities’ policy concerns and facilitating stronger networks and coalitions.” Here is a real opportunity surely for foundations to have an impact on more effective citizen participation in democratic dialogues. It would be empowering and powerful to fund networks and coalitions to engage in evidence-based dialogues, to represent communities in discussions with policy makers and to engage with the public through media of all kinds. Bridging, and sometimes battling, as Phil Buchanan has put it, could be important philanthropic contributions to increase the vibrancy of democracy in Canada. And charitable funders could lead the way in de-risking and modeling these activities for other charities. Worth a conversation at the next board meeting, regardless of the electoral calendar or outcomes!