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.