From generosity to systems change - Diplomatic Courier

From generosity to systems change.

Insights from the Future of Philanthropy Forum, 2nd Edition, in Zurich, Switzerland.

On 17 January, 2026, Diplomatic Courier, through its think tank World in 2050, convened the second in a multi-part series on the future of philanthropy. This salon–style gathering, convened under the Chatham House Rule, was designed to explore what the future of philanthropy might look like if we reconceptualize philanthropy as a form of risk capital.

The growing aid gap has become a prevalent news item over the past year as governments—most notably the U.S.—have turned their attention to domestic issues and securitization. Yet gaps in the systemic efficacy of government–controlled aid programs have been apparent for some time. The systemic flaw at issue? Governments approach aid from a risk–averse perspective, being sensitive to how the project will affect domestic political capital. This risk aversion results in shorter–term projects, moving benchmarks, bureaucratic complexity, and difficulty coordinating with stakeholders.

The government retreat from aid requires a response. It also represents an opportunity to not just fill the gaps but to fix the flaws that most ail the current system. An evolving, expanded role for philanthropy could be crucial to this project.

Why Philanthropy?

Philanthropy is uniquely suited to act as “risk capital” for the public good at a time when markets move faster and public institutions are strained by overlapping crises. Operating upstream of government and markets, philanthropy can fund experimentation before ideas are politically or commercially viable, absorb the costs of failure and learning, and build evidence and institutional readiness for later scale. This expanded role requires different thinking—measuring success by handoff to public or market adoption rather than particular outputs—and stronger governance, transparency, and legitimacy so risk–taking can build trust rather than eroding it.

Envisioning the Future of Philanthropy

The Future of Philanthropy Forum brought together visionary investors, foundation heads, and next–generation philanthropists to discuss key aspects of a future for philanthropy that does more than fill financing gaps, but is deeply embedded in the infrastructure and charitable ecosystem. In the weeks after the gathering, we asked several participants to share with us the impressions and insights that stuck with them most. Here are the ones we heard most often.

What we must help depart well:

Logic of extractive capital.

Long the dominant grammar behind our operating logics, it converts attention, data, labor, and land into externalized profit. While producing outputs, it does not produce continuity and it is not sensitive to on–the–ground needs and contexts, and rewards short–term yield over long-term coherence.

Traditional metrics.

Today’s metrics of success are output–oriented. GDP measures throughput. Engagement metrics measure capture. ESG often devolves into performance theater. These fail to measure resilience, meaning, and systemic regeneration. To think long-term and systemically about what the next charitable ecosystem looks like, we must focus on outcomes rather than outputs.

Unitary funding/governance model.

Governments are retreating from the charitable space. Governments and multilateral institutions have specifically designed ways to govern the charitable space, but with government funding cuts both to institutions and to direct aid, there is neither enough funding nor the expertise for governance that existed before. No single actor can fill these roles, meaning unitary models are on the way out.

Programmatic thinking.

Philanthropy has historically funded specific programs within a broader ecosystem of aid, with governments and multilateral institutions the shaper, manager, and guarantor of that ecosystem. To evolve, philanthropy will need to leave behind this focus on programs.

What we must help arrive well:

Beyond short-term bandaids.

The aid sector has been in crisis mode, triaging to fill critical funding gaps now to save lives. While this is critical, we must design what comes next, now. Philanthropy’s ability to act as risk capital makes it possible for stakeholders to think longer–term, beyond quarterly returns and election cycles.

System co–architects.

Philanthropy must evolve to step into a new role, moving from charitable giving to taking an active role in designing the systems of the future. The capacity of philanthropy to act as risk capital makes this possible. But durable system design will nevertheless require deep collaboration and trust not just across philanthropies but across sectors.

Architecting starts with governance.

The first step of this evolution to system co-architect is governance. Governance forms the core of systems building, from incentives and frameworks to decisions, accountability, and transparency. But governance must also be redesigned for a cross-sectoral, shared decision making environment.

Beyond programs.

As philanthropy moves beyond programmatic thinking to governance, it will be intrinsically involved in the design, funding, and help governance of entire ecosystems of aid. Philanthropy will need to evolve its thinking and practices to develop coordinated capital strategies aligning policy, research, community voice, investment, and metrics.

The impact of AI.

AI will influence philanthropy in the years to come, but it’s early enough for us to shape how. As philanthropy evolves into risk capital, its internal infrastructure will need to incorporate AI thoughtfully and with intent: strengthening due diligence, simulating portfolio diversification, identifying funding gaps, and reducing bias in decision making.

Portfolio thinking.

To successfully act as risk capital requires philanthropies to design portfolios intentionally, often in collaboration with other philanthropies. From exploration to scaling and deployment, these portfolios and approaches should be designed for iterative, institutional learning that can be captured and passed on.

Handoff is the ultimate success.

The best “winning” outcome with portfolio thinking is a successful handoff—when other stakeholders are prepared to take over initiatives and concepts that philanthropies innovated, explored, and proved.

Trust and responsibility.

Philanthropy as a sector at present doesn’t have the well-developed transparency or accountability mechanisms necessary for responsive governance. Developing these mechanisms is critical to forming coalitions with philanthropic organizations that successfully adopt the above thinking—and will fund not just access but sovereignty so handoffs are takeoffs.

Signal Discernment

Here are some of the specific insights and takeaways that stayed with attendees in the weeks following:

John Goodwin

Senior Adviser

Learning Economy Foundation

“In other sectors, risk capital is followed by discipline: outcomes are assessed, resources are concentrated, talent flows toward what works, and paths that don’t deliver are consciously closed. In the social sector, we often hesitate at that second step…because it raises difficult questions about choice, power, and letting go.”

Tom Vandenbosch

Global Director of Programs

VVOB

“A compelling reframing was the idea that philanthropy’s defining contribution today is not generosity, but its willingness to absorb and govern risk on behalf of society. In periods of systemic transition, this upstream role, funding experimentation, enabling learning, and preparing institutions, is still underutilized.”

Dr. Jessica Conser

Chief AI Impact Officer

Maginative

“Philanthropy often funds programs. The future requires funding ecosystems. That means moving beyond isolated grants toward coordinated capital strategies that align policy, research, community voice, and investment.”

Nikos Acuña

CEO & Founder

Aion Research Corp.

“The prevailing charitable model is optimized for episodic intervention: fund the problem, measure the output, move on. This is philanthropy as allopoiesis—producing external effects without regenerating the system’s internal capacity to endure.”

Sean Slade

CEO

Slade Consultancy

“[Philanthropy as risk capital should naturally] weed out those donors that are giving for their own benefit. Instead by having a more challenging environment, and one in which donors and recipients must band together, makes for a more honest and authentic setting.”

Mario Vasilescu

CEO & Co-Founder

Readocracy

“Too often it feels like middlemen are dictating the narrative instead of the people intended to be helped. People should be empowered to be part of the solution–making. So much of legacy business has gone or is going D2C, from journalism to education. Philanthropy could benefit from following suit.”

Lasse Leponiemi

Executive Director

HundrED

“Philanthropic capital should therefore be viewed as a short– to mid–term instrument to de–risk growth, enable experimentation, and support system adoption. Its role is not to create dependency, but to catalyse long–term sustainability and resilience within communities and education systems.” — Lasse Leponiemi, Executive Director, HundrED

Note: The Future of Philanthropy Forum, 2nd Edition convened under the Chatham House Rule. Participants included: Dr. Alison Bryant, Ana C. Rold, Anna Kuusela, Chris Purifoy, Dr. George Zarkadakis, Dr. Imane Kendili, Dr. Jessica Conser, Johanna Söderström, John Goodwin, Judit Arenas, Lasse Leponiemi, Mario Vasilescu, Nikos Acuna, Sarah Howard, Sean Slade, Dr. Shane Szarkowski, Tarja Stephens, Tom Vandenbosch, and Valerie Boulet.

All direct attributions made with speaker consent.