The practice of strategic philanthropy: insights and a framework from the field

Global philanthropy is playing an increasingly central role in shaping business strategies and societal outcomes, particularly as individual giving is projected to rise by 3.4% by 2025 (Osili et al., 2024) and significant reductions in public aid (Mbah et al., 2025). Individuals with high net worth are increasingly aligning their giving with business objectives, a practice termed “philanthrocapitalism” (McGoey, 2014). For example, philanthropic giving in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region alone is estimated at approximately U$210bn and is expected to continue growing, further amplifying the global influence of private capital in public problem solving (LGT Group Foundation, 2022). This convergence of business strategy and social purpose brings about ethical challenges and reputational scrutiny. However, academic literature often adopts an external lens, portraying philanthropists as either altruistic heroes or self-serving elites, overlooking their nuanced decision making and self-aware navigation of systemic complexities (McGoey, 2021; Reich, 2020). Such polarizing portrayals obscure the lived complexity of philanthropic decision-making, overlooking how individuals at the helm of these efforts consciously navigate systemic constraints, legacy considerations and competing moral logics (Ben Jaafar and Bodolica, 2024; Moody and Breeze, 2016).

A recent example illustrating this tension is when Bill Gates announced a $200bn commitment to be distributed over the next two decades through the Gates Foundation, in May 2025. He plans to sunset the foundation by 2045 stating: “People will say a lot of things about me when I die,” he wrote, “but I am determined that ‘he died rich’ will not be one of them” (Gates, 2025). Gates has demonstrated that he is acutely aware of public scrutiny aligned with his strategic efforts to shape his legacy. However, critical scholarship often portrays his philanthropy as undermining democracy and perpetuating systemic inequality (Chliova, 2023; McCoy and McGoey, 2011; Reich et al., 2016). While these critiques hold some validity, they rarely engage with how philanthropists perceive and respond to these tensions in practice.

This study addresses this gap by amplifying the voices of global philanthropists and exploring how they reconcile business alignment, ethical responsibility and societal outcomes. Drawing on grounded theory analysis of 43 publicly available interviews conducted by Badr Jafar with philanthropists across Asia, Europe, the Middle East and North America, this study captures both regional variation and sectoral breadth. The interviewees include entrepreneurs, foundation leaders, and policymakers who reflect on their motivations, challenges and long-term impact strategies. Their insights reveal how philanthropic efforts align with business goals while navigating complex ethical terrains. This diversity of inputs allows a better understanding of their strategies for aligning their giving with business goals while addressing ethical challenges. The public nature of these interviews introduces a degree of self-presentation bias; however, this is not necessarily a methodological flaw but rather an inherent feature of elite discourse likely to persist even in private settings (Maclean et al., 2021). These individuals are adept narrators of their corporate and philanthropic identity. Their communication strategies offer a window into how they manage accountability, shape public perceptions and leverage influence. Rather than diminishing the analysis, this bias enriches the understanding of their strategic thinking and societal roles, as exemplified by Gates’ deliberate legacy framing.

This study offers practical guidance for philanthropists, CSR professionals and business leaders, presenting actionable strategies to align philanthropic activity with sustainable impact while giving due attention to ethical integrity. With global aid budgets facing historic reductions in 2025, there is growing reliance on private sector philanthropy to fill critical gaps in addressing societal challenges, making their strategies more relevant than ever (OECD, 2025; Sabow et al., 2025). By focusing on insider narratives often overlooked in academic critiques, this paper introduces a practitioner-oriented framework that challenges prevailing external assumptions and advances the practice of business ethics and responsible leadership.

This paper begins with a literature review examining business in philanthropy and its associated ethical tensions. The methodology section then outlines the thematic analysis of the interviews and addresses the interpretive implications of the self-presentation bias. The findings explore how philanthropic leaders navigate the intersection of strategy and ethics, and the discussion and conclusions integrate these insights with existing scholarship to propose practical implications and directions for future research. This structure ensures a deeper understanding of practitioners operating at the intersection of philanthropy and business, in an increasingly interconnected and complex global landscape.

Global philanthropy is increasingly shaped by high-net-worth individuals who integrate business principles into their giving, a practice termed “philanthrocapitalism” (McGoey, 2014, 2021). This strategic alignment with corporate goals employs market-based tools such as impact investing to address societal challenges (Gautier and Pache, 2015; Porter and Kramer, 2011). The Lilly Family School of Philanthropy projects a 3.4% rise in individual giving in 2025, highlighting the growing role of private wealth in addressing public concerns (Osili et al., 2024). Advocates argue that strategic philanthropy leverages the private sector to drive impact, because this model brings efficiency and innovation to philanthropy, drawing on the private sector’s capacity to scale solutions. However, empirical studies have revealed a disconnect between aspirations and practice. For instance, Campbell and Slack (2008) found limited evidence of strategic intent in corporate philanthropic disclosures, while others noted a lack of systematic approaches to evaluating the philanthropic impact (Liket and Maas, 2016; Marquis and Lee, 2013). Despite the growing discourse on strategic philanthropy, there remains a gap in understanding how philanthropists conceptualize and operationalize strategies in relation to business alignment.

The coupling of philanthropic capital with corporate strategy presents significant ethical challenges related to power, legitimacy and accountability. As public funding diminishes, private actors increasingly assume roles once held by the state, reshaping governance structures and influencing policy across essential sectors. Critics contend that philanthrocapitalism risks undermining democratic accountability by positioning significant public interest decisions in the hands of unelected elites (Chliova, 2023; McCoy and McGoey, 2011; Reich et al., 2016). The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, has been widely praised for its scale and ambition (Moran and Stevenson, 2013; Youde, 2013), particularly following Bill Gates’ recent announcement of a $200bn commitment to be disbursed over the next two decades (2025). However, it has also been criticized for exerting a disproportionate influence over global health and education policies, often bypassing local governance structures and diminishing community agency (Blunt, 2022; Harman, 2016; Lambin and Surender, 2021).

While formal governance mechanisms, such as foundation boards and transparency protocols, are intended to promote accountability, scholars argue that they often fall short in addressing deeper structural imbalances of power and legitimacy (Reiser and Dean, 2023). The financialization of philanthropy, particularly through elite-driven impact investing, further complicates the questions of intent, risk tolerance and public value (Maclean et al., 2021). These concerns have been magnified by recent aid contractions. In 2024, official development assistance (ODA) from OECD member countries fell by 7.1% in real terms compared to 2023, marking the first decline in six years, with the total ODA amounting to US$212.1bn (OECD, 2025). This reduction is attributed to decreased contributions to international organizations, lower levels of humanitarian aid and reduced spending on hosting refugees in donor countries. In 2025, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) announced a reduction in active contracts, totaling $60bn, impacting programs in 130 countries (Le Monde, 2025). Such contractions in aid underscore the growing reliance on private philanthropic actors to fill the critical gaps in global development funding. Critics argue that in this context, private philanthropy is no longer merely a complement to public aid but is increasingly positioned, whether by necessity or design, as its de facto substitute. This shift underscores the urgent need for strengthened ethical frameworks and accountability mechanisms within private philanthropy to ensure that influence is exercised with legitimacy and that the impact is both equitable and transparent.

Notwithstanding the growing literature addressing philanthrocapitalism, strategic intent and the ethics of elite giving, most scholars rely on externally driven analyses that treat philanthropy as a subject of critique rather than a lived practice shaped by deliberation, constraint and evolving norms (Moody and Breeze, 2016). Ben Jaafar and Bodolica’s (2024) review of 470 articles from 1991 to 2021 revealed a focus on corporate philanthropy’s instrumental value, with limited attention to philanthropic leadership. This imbalance limits scholarly insight into how philanthropists actively negotiate tensions between social responsibility, business alignment and ethical governance, especially as public demand grows. The public narratives of elite philanthropists often reflect self-presentation bias, which may reveals their strategic navigation of accountability and influence (Maclean et al., 2021). Without direct engagement with how philanthropic actors interpret their ethical responsibilities, navigate legitimacy concerns, and structure accountability, scholarship risks flattening the complexity and reinforcing reductive narratives of philanthropy as either altruism or self-interest. Addressing this gap through the inclusion of insider perspectives offers a more nuanced and empirically grounded understanding of philanthropic strategies. A perspective that advances ethical theory while informing responsible leadership and governance in the business–society domain.

There is a growing recognition of the need for interdisciplinary and human-centered approaches for studying philanthropy. Scholars increasingly call for the integration of political economy, sociology and moral philosophy to better capture the layered motivations, power dynamics, and institutional roles of philanthropists (Ahmad and Saifer, 2024; Salamon, 2014). However, empirical research that centers on philanthropists’ perspectives, particularly in relation to governance design, adaptive strategy and ethical deliberation, remains limited. While critical scrutiny of elite influence remains essential, it must be complemented by research that examines how philanthropists themselves construct, resist or reform systems of accountability, particularly in an era marked by heightened public scrutiny and diminishing state capacity (OECD, 2025).

This study addresses this gap by analyzing insider narratives from 43 publicly available interviews conducted by Badr Jafar with leading philanthropists across Asia, Europe, the Middle East and North America. It investigates how these actors conceptualize and navigate the intersections of business strategy, ethical responsibility and systemic influence in their philanthropic practice. By grounding the analysis from a practitioner’s perspective, this paper contributes to business ethics scholarship with empirically informed insight and advances a more balanced, practice-oriented understanding of philanthropy’s evolving role in global governance and development.

This study uses a qualitative grounded theory design to examine how prominent philanthropic leaders navigate the intersection of business alignment, ethical responsibility and societal outcomes. It responds to a gap in the literature: the underrepresentation of philanthropists’ voices in analyses of strategic giving, governance, and accountability (Moody and Breeze, 2016). Rather than using traditional researcher-led interviews, this study analyzed 43 publicly available interviews conducted by H.E. Badr Jafar, an Emirati business leader and philanthropist, and the United Arab Emirates’ Special Envoy for Business and Philanthropy, whom TIME (2025) recognized as one of the most influential advocates of strategic philanthropy (Kemp and Dunlop, 2014). The credibility of the network represented is further confirmed by the inclusion of three individuals featured in the interviews: H.E. Abdul Aziz Al Ghurair, Darren Walker and Tsitsi Masiyiwa, all of whom were named in TIME’s (2025) list of the 100 most influential figures shaping global philanthropy. By leveraging Jafar’s standing as a peer within this community, these interviews offer candid reflections that are typically difficult to capture through traditional research designs, because they bypass the protracted trust-building phase typically required to access the lived experiences of high-net-worth individuals (Maclean et al., 2015; Yin, 2016). These narratives offer a rich source of insight into how philanthropic leaders interpret their influence, frame their legitimacy and reconcile business acumen with social objectives.

Grounded theory was selected as the analytical framework (Charmaz, 2006, 2014; Glaser and Strauss, 2017) allowing themes to emerge inductively from the data. This approach is particularly suited for examining the lived reality of global philanthropists, who are both ethically complex and strategically diverse. The design acknowledges the methodological tensions between allowing ideas to surface from data and the influence of prior theoretical assumptions (Kelle, 2005), while attending to the geopolitical and cultural specificities of elite philanthropic practice. Finally, rather than treating public self-presentation bias as a methodological weakness, this study regards it as an intentional and meaningful part of elite discourse, where crafting narratives, signaling values and managing reputational capital are part of how influence is exercised (Maclean et al., 2021).

This study draws on a purposive sample of 44 influential philanthropic leaders from Asia, Europe, North America and the Middle East. Participants included entrepreneurs, foundation executives, and senior policymakers who were actively engaged in shaping philanthropic agendas at the national and global levels. This diversity offers both geographic breadth and sectoral depth, allowing the study to capture various approaches to governance, motivation, and alignment between philanthropy and business (Court and Abbas, 2013; Salmons, 2012). What distinguishes this sample is not only its scope, but also the unique access afforded through Jafar’s insider status as a peer in this community. This sample’s diversity and insider sourcing distinguishes it from prior studies, offering a rich, cross-cultural data set to explore philanthropic–business dynamics.

Data for this study were drawn from 43 publicly accessible interviews conducted by H.E. Badr Jafar as part of The Business of Philanthropy series, hosted on the YouTube channel “The Business of Philanthropy with Badr Jafar.” The interviews span from June 29, 2020, to December 19, 2024, and feature influential philanthropists from Asia, Europe, the Middle East and North America. Each interview lasted on average 45 min (range: 22–68 min), offering extended reflection on themes such as motivation, strategy, legacy and ethical governance.

Initial data collection involved retrieving and transcribing all 43 videos verbatim. Transcripts were systematically reviewed to familiarize the research team with the content and identify primary speakers and their focal areas, such as strategic philanthropy and collaboration, laying the groundwork for thematic analysis. This approach leveraged the interviews’ public accessibility and insider-to-insider authenticity, aligning with prior studies on the geographic and ethical dimensions of philanthropy and business.

The analysis followed a grounded theory approach, iteratively coding and synthesizing data to uncover emergent themes without imposing preconceived frameworks (Charmaz, 2006, 2014, 2014a; Glaser and Strauss, 2017). The process unfolded into five key steps:

1. an initial review of transcripts to gain a holistic understanding, noting recurring concepts (e.g. strategic intent);

2. systematic coding of recurring themes across interviews, such as collaboration or ethical tensions, refined iteratively (Braun and Clarke, 2006);

3. extraction of relevant excerpts (statements, examples and advice) coded thematically to ensure traceability;

4. cross-referencing coded data to identify similarities and contradictions, consolidating insights; and

5. synthesis of key themes into concise summaries reflecting diverse perspectives.

This iterative process, supported by qualitative analysis software, enhanced analytical rigor and transparency, with bold formatting used to emphasize critical findings (e.g. strategic philanthropy) for clarity and interpretive focus.

Ethical integrity was maintained by analyzing only publicly disclosed data and avoiding additional personal identifiers (Owens, 2022). Self-presentation biases from the public YouTube format were mitigated through reflexive interpretation, assessing Jafar’s influence and participants’ performative tendencies. Triangulation with secondary sources and peer debriefing enhanced validity by addressing elite sample bias. This methodology enables the practice-oriented exploration of insider narratives, illuminating philanthropist strategies across diverse regions.

A grounded theory analysis of the 43 interviews revealed four primary themes: strategic alignment with business, ethical challenges in power and legitimacy, governance and influence, and legacy and innovation. Five cross-cutting dimensions also emerged across the interviews: collaboration and partnerships, local empowerment and sustainability, evidence-based practice and non-financial contributions, risk-taking and engagement in emerging markets. Taken together, these themes reflect the complexity of philanthropic leadership, highlighting both the strategic sophistication and ethical nuances with which philanthropists approach their work.

Philanthropic leaders in this study frequently describe giving as an extension of their core business values rather than as separate or charitable endeavors. Instead of drawing a sharp line between commercial and philanthropic identities, they emphasize coherence across both spheres. As H.E. Abdul Aziz Al Ghurair notes: “Philanthropy really should be run like […] we run our business, what are we trying to achieve in the next five years, 10 years? What impact we need to have on our society?” Strategic planning, performance tracking and systems thinking, hallmarks of their business operations are intentionally applied to their philanthropic efforts. Jacqueline Novogratz captures this ethos, describing the aim as bringing “long-term rigor and discipline” to social impact.

This structured approach is often accompanied by meaningful nonfinancial contributions, including time, networks, and expertise. Many participants stress that financial capital alone is insufficient, particularly in contexts where institutional infrastructure is weak or access is constrained. Sunny Varkey, reflecting on his education initiatives in underserved regions, explains: “Partnerships amplify our reach.” His model blends commercial viability with expanded access, particularly in emerging markets where affordability remains a key barrier.

At the same time, several philanthropists underscore the role of instinct, responsiveness and emotional clarity. As Fady Jameel puts it: “Sometimes you just give because it’s the right thing.” Rather than framing structured and spontaneous giving as oppositional, interviewees present them as mutually reinforcing, each essential to sustaining a values-driven approach.

This integrated philosophy was clearly articulated by H.E. Sheikha Bodour bint Sultan Al Qasimi:

Her reflection conveys a pragmatic, sustained commitment to impact grounded in both strategic design and personal engagement. This duality between business-like planning and spontaneous generosity reflects a broader logic of alignment: measurable outcomes, long-term orientation and responsiveness to local realities. Across interviews, alignment with business principles is not merely rhetorical; it is operationalized through models that leverage both financial and social capital, aiming to build partnerships and systems capable of enduring and evolving. This alignment between the business mindset and philanthropic purpose suggests a shift away from the construct of charity-as-relief to the construct of philanthropy-as-infrastructure that is intended to be durable, measurable, and replicable. This challenges the notion that strategic alignment is superficial and purely reputational. For these actors, legacy and legitimacy are crafted through consistent intentional designs across sectors.

The philanthropic leaders in this study frequently reflect on the ethical challenges that arise at the intersection of power, legitimacy and intent. Operating outside formal democratic structures, yet influencing public outcomes, they acknowledge the inherent tension between wielding influence and being held accountable. Rather than sidestepping this imbalance, many engage with it, directly emphasizing the embeddedness, cultural sensitivity and legitimacy earned through action, not just intention.

For several participants, legitimacy began with proximity to the communities that they serve. H.E. Sheikha Bodour bint Sultan Al Qasimi articulates this clearly: “We wanted to give children tools to express their voices and assert their existence.” Her perspective reflects the broader concern of certain philanthropists to ensure cultural empowerment and inclusion, especially in settings where traditional hierarchies or foreign interventions have historically marginalized local voices. This emphasis on bottom-up legitimacy is echoed by Mo Ibrahim, who cautions: “Philanthropists have to start working directly with grassroots communities, not through intermediaries.” His critique underscores the ethical limitations of top-down models that may unintentionally reinforce dependency while sidelining local agency.

Across the regions, participants draw attention to the delicate balance between enabling and imposing. Darren Walker notes the next generation of philanthropists “understand the need to be proximate to the problems and the people,” warning against “overcompensating the experts… at the expense of listening to those who are closest.” Sanjit Bunker Roy emphasizes, “The only sustainable solution is to decentralize and demystify,” urging direct work with grassroots communities rather than intermediaries. Razan Al Mubarak echoes this imperative: “If we don’t engage genuinely with local communities… we will be failing those we are trying to serve.” These reflections reveal a shared rejection of detached or performative models that Fadi Ghandour cautions against because “if it’s just PR, it’s not serious.” Instead, participants affirm legitimacy through embeddedness, humility, and responsiveness, underscoring a shift toward more accountable, community-rooted philanthropic practices.

That said, participants also acknowledged the value of strategic influence. Several noted that private capital, when deployed with transparency and intent, can respond to urgent needs more quickly and flexibly than traditional bureaucracies. As David Miliband notes, “Philanthropic capital can move quicker generally than governments or even businesses,” especially in crisis contexts where agility matters most. He further emphasized that philanthropy should “lead government when government isn’t leading” offering bold solutions that public institutions may be too slow or risk-averse to pursue. However, this perspective raises its own ethical questions: Who sets the agenda in the absence of a public mandate? What ensures the alignment between private priorities and public good? While these questions are not always answered directly, many philanthropists attempt to respond through grounded practice, anchoring their work in long-term partnerships, local consultation and sustained, visible presence.

Sustainability emerges as a cornerstone of perceived legitimacy. Philanthropic leaders in this study consistently frame impact not as a finite intervention, but as an intergenerational commitment that demands institutional durability and systemic foresight. Partnership, in this context, is not pursued for its own sake but as a strategic means to sustain outcomes that outlast individual actors. Legitimacy is anchored not in the visibility or longevity of the donor but in the resilience of the systems they help build. As Filippo Grandi notes, many philanthropic actors “don’t want to just give money, they want to be partners in making progress, making interventions more sustainable.” This orientation repositions philanthropists from benefactors to co-architects who are focused on catalyzing progress. Haifa Fahoum Al Kaylani echoes this ethos of shared accountability: “We all share the same objective… there is transparency along the way, there’s accountability… and we’re seeing a lot of that now and this is really heartwarming.” These reflections point to a redefinition of the legacy beyond a personal imprint to achieve institutional resilience. Specifically, legitimacy is actioned through the creation of adaptable and enduring solutions capable of serving future generations.

Ultimately, these reflections suggest that ethical challenges in philanthropy are not abstract dilemmas, but lived realities. These narratives illustrate how influence, accountability, and legitimacy are not accidental outcomes, but strategically cultivated over time, signaling that public narratives are part of how these actors structure their ethical and operational legitimacy. The philanthropic leaders interviewed do not frame themselves as neutral benefactors, but as intentional actors navigating the risks and responsibilities of their influence. They emphasize empowerment, co-creation and accountability through presence, seeking to convert visibility into trust, and power into shared purpose. In this view, legitimacy is not a one-off validation check, but an ongoing ethical commitment. Taken together, these reflections signal a growing recognition among philanthropists that legitimacy is relational and earned not only through outcomes, but through the way power is shared and influence is exercised. A concept elucidated by Jacqueline Novogratz:

This relational model of legitimacy reflects the broader evolution of how philanthropic actors understand responsibility. Moving beyond metrics and compliance, they stress the importance of being known, responsive and consistent. While self-presentation bias remains a feature of elite discourse, many narratives signal a shift toward substantive responsibility. The challenge, then, is not merely to do good but also to do good well: aligning ambition with humility, power with accountability and capital with care.

Philanthropic leaders in this study emphasize the centrality of robust internal governance to drive transformative external influence. They consistently frame themselves not as passive funders, but as strategic leaders working to shape systems, policies and communities, particularly in contexts marked by institutional fragility or state inertia. This influence is grounded in the operational discipline: clear procedures, transparent reporting and skilled teams ensure accountability and credibility. As Dr Wladimir Klitschko notes, “Philanthropy is not-for-profit, but you handle it like a business.” Rasha Alturki reinforces this view: “When it’s an organization, it’s a business, and you treat it that way,” while Muna Al Gurg adds, “Let’s treat our philanthropy as we would our investments.” These perspectives reflect a broader shift from charitable impulses to mission-driven enterprises, with legitimacy anchored in measurable impacts and professional rigor.

Participants consistently link their ability to shape public agendas with the strength of their internal infrastructure. Azim Premji underscores the importance of building a “very strong organization with people of dedication and competence,” describing a “professional ethic” as essential for sustained contributions. Darren Walker describes infrastructure as “the necessary inputs that provide the platforms for higher performing, more effective philanthropy”. Echoing this, Alturki emphasises the need to invest in “people” and “systems” like CRM to enable transparent, results-oriented reporting. In this view, strategic influence cultivates credibility when backed by a resilient internal capacity.

The goal is not operational excellence for its own sake but to enable credible influence that drives lasting impact. This influence is exercised through strategic collaboration, proximity to communities and catalytic intervention. Thus, cross-sector partnerships are essential. As Baroness Valerie Amos notes, effective collaboration “can’t just be intergovernmental, it has to work across different sectors of society.” Fadi Ghandour similarly stresses the need for private sector engagement to avoid “self-marginalization,” advocating for “people of goodwill” to work together with government so that “we can all shoulder the responsibility together.”

Community engagement is essential for credible influence. Nandan and Rohini Nilekani stress that complex issues could not be solved in silos, highlighting the need for community-informed collaborative approaches. Sanjit Bunker Roy underscores grassroots pressure urging direct engagement with intermediaries, and advocates dialogue between funders and practitioners to build trust. He adds that business can learn from community actors, a point echoed by Achim Steiner, who notes that philanthropy’s agility and proximity to communities enable bold, risk-tolerant strategies.

Philanthropy’s role, the participants agreed, is catalytic and designed to spark scalable solutions that complement, not replace, public systems. Their business acumen reinforces the confidence that internal discipline enables lasting external impact. Muhammad Yunus contrasts charity with social business, describing the latter as “more powerful” for solving problems sustainably. Masami Sato echoes this, emphasizing value creation and financial independence. Mike Milken calls philanthropy “risk capital” that moves faster than governments or business, priming bold ideas for broader adoption.

In sum, internal discipline empowers external ambition. Strategic philanthropy today is defined not only by how money is given but also by how institutions are built to create equitable, lasting changes. In this context, governance structures do not merely support efficiency, they serve as mechanisms to formalize legitimacy, demonstrate intent and sustain influence beyond individual actors. This further supports the cultivation of lasting legacies.

Philanthropic leaders in this study frame innovation as a catalyst for systemic change and prioritize it because of its strategic importance. Their role, as they see it, is to ignite bold solutions through cross-sector collaboration and community-led approaches, particularly in fast-evolving or under-resourced settings. As Strive Masiyiwa puts it, “We can respond faster than any bureaucracy.” Risk is considered essential to unlocking new possibilities. Achim Steiner notes that philanthropy “can be far more targeted, far more agile… and can take more risks,” uniquely positioning it to help governments and entrepreneurs scale up promising ideas. Bill Gates echoes this, stating that “philanthropy is also very good at moving quickly, finding new innovation.”

However, strategic innovation extends beyond speed. Participants emphasize the importance of blending disciplines and scaling emerging tools. Razan Al Mubarak speaks of working at “the nexus of disciplines” to address complex challenges, while Mads Krogsgaard Thomsen and Mike Milken reference the potential of genomics, carbon capture and scalable technologies to reduce barriers and increase reach. This technical sophistication is complemented by a focus on equity: Ari Emanuel and Carlos Slim Helú invest in digital infrastructure not only to innovate but also to reduce inequality.

In addition, they view innovation as inseparable from the context in which it is applied. Community proximity, previously linked to influence in earlier findings, anchors innovation by enhancing trust, relevance and legitimacy. Rasha Alturki emphasizes that sustainable change begins when communities have the tools to “come up with the best solutions for themselves.” Peter Maurer frames this as a “pathway out of dependency,” while Tony Elumelu stresses that enabling self-sufficiency is ultimately more impactful than providing aid. These perspectives position innovation as a participatory process rather than a top-down intervention.

Simultaneously, participants express concern about the ethical tensions that innovation can introduce, particularly when private influence encroaches on public systems. They highlight risks associated with top-down models that overlook local realities, as well as the skepticism that arises when philanthropists intervene in domains traditionally governed by the state. Mo Ibrahim cautions against approaches that sideline local capacity. Tsitsi Masiyiwa reflects on the discomfort profit motives can trigger in the social sector, noting that even “the mention of profit… makes the approach lose its shine and authenticity.” Participants suggest that the effectiveness of innovation depends on humility and a deep respect for the ecosystems it enters. This balance is pursued through grounded, community-rooted strategies, as demonstrated by Tony O. Elumelu and Sanjit Bunker Roy’s emphasis on education and entrepreneurship as pathways to locally led and enduring solutions. Innovation, in this view, is not framed as disruption for its own sake, but as a tool for inclusive system design that bridges ambition with accountability.

In this regard, the catalytic role of philanthropy becomes evident. At the time, HRH The Prince of Wales (now King Charles III) highlights its ability to bridge the “valley of death” for early-stage innovations, while Laurence Lien underscores how philanthropy’s long-term horizon and flexibility complement the rigidity of public systems.

Ultimately, innovation is framed as both a method and mindset rooted in proximity, ethics, and collaboration. By embracing risk and discomfort, philanthropists aim to create inclusive systems that can evolve and endure. In other words, they strive to find sustainable solutions. They see themselves not only as funders but also as future-oriented architects who position innovation as a central pillar of their reputational influence and, ultimately, their legacy.

This study reveals a reflexive philanthropic practice at the intersection of business strategy, ethical responsibility and systemic impact. Structured around four interrelated domains; strategic alignment, ethical challenges, governance and influence, and innovation for impact; the findings suggest that philanthropy is emerging as a praxis field, evolving to meet global complexity through disciplined experimentation, inclusive values and long-term vision. These themes respond to recent calls for deeper engagement with insider perspectives (Ben Jaafar and Bodolica, 2024; Moody and Breeze, 2016), particularly in the context of declining ODA (Mbah et al., 2025; OECD, 2025) and rising private capital in global problem-solving (Osili et al., 2024). This discussion connects empirical insights to the literature and proposes a three-part practitioner framework to support accountable and effective philanthropy in an interdependent world. This framework challenges Campbell and Slack’s (Campbell and Slack, 2008) view of unstructured giving, extends Porter and Kramer’s (2011) shared-value framework and confronts Reich’s (2020) critique of private power, necessitating a nuanced reevaluation of philanthropy’s role.

Strategic philanthropy, as observed in this study, reflects the deliberate merging of business acumen with social purpose. Participants described using tools such as strategic planning, outcome tracking, and non-financial assets including networks, credibility and convening power to drive long-term systemic outcomes. This echoes a broader shift toward hybrid models of “philanthrocapitalism”(Bishop, 2013; Bishop and Green, 2015; McGoey, 2021), where private actors apply market-based approaches to social challenges. Although these strategies can accelerate scale and innovation (Porter and Kramer, 2011), they also introduce tensions around legitimacy, equity and the potential erosion of public systems. The philanthropic leaders in this study appeared acutely aware of these critiques. Concerns raised by scholars, such as Nickel and Eikenberry’s (2009) warning that corporate-aligned giving may instrumentalize social problems, or Maclean et al.’s (2021) caution about elite consolidation, were acknowledged and actively countered. Rather than defaulting top-down or brand-driven initiatives, participants emphasized co-creation, proximity and stakeholder-informed decision making. Their rejection of tokenism and prioritization of trust and local relevance reflects an evolving practice that aims to embed ethical commitments within operational strategy and reposition philanthropic influence as both accountable and grounded.

Power and legitimacy emerge in this study, not just as tensions to navigate but as responsibilities to uphold. Participants recognize the ethical complexity of stepping into spaces historically managed by public sector actors, an issue made more urgent by recent global aid retrenchments, such as the 2025 USAID contraction that withdrew $60bn from 130 countries (Mbah et al., 2025). Scholars, such as Reich (2020) and McGoey (2021), have criticized such shifts as undemocratic, arguing that philanthropic actors risk bypassing public accountability and reinforcing elite influence.

However, philanthropic leaders in this study exhibited a self-aware, reflexive posture. Rather than relying on metrics of scale or narratives of success to claim legitimacy, they emphasized proximity, humility and responsiveness. For them, legitimacy was not granted by status but earned through trust, long-term presence, and the co-creation of solutions with local communities. While self-presentation bias may shape how these narratives are constructed (Prapavessis, 2004), it is precisely because these leaders must operationalize proximity and shared ownership to sustain the narrative that such framing holds weight. This suggests that ethical intent, whether strategic or sincere, may drive shifts in practice. Their approach aligns with Chliova’s (2023) work on participatory development, reinforcing a move away from paternalistic models toward those rooted in mutual accountability. For practitioners, this underscores the value of ethical design principles, iterative learning models and community-led diagnostics that center local agency while ensuring that philanthropic influence remains responsive and accountable.

Philanthropic organizations are increasingly influential in shaping public policy and development landscapes, raising questions of accountability, transparency and legitimacy (Kraeger and Robichau, 2017; Moran and Stone, 2016). In response, many foundations have adopted internal governance mechanisms, including audits, performance dashboards and staff capability frameworks. They also seek stakeholder input to bolster credibility and responsiveness (Brandtner et al., 2016; Kraeger and Robichau, 2017). The philanthropic leaders in this study described these systems as core enablers of strategic influence rather than bureaucratic necessities. Their approach parallels Scherer and Palazzo’s (2012) emphasis on governance ethics and stakeholder engagement as normative foundations of organizational legitimacy. These findings align with broader evidence that organizational identity and strategic focus shape accountability practices (Williamson and Luke, 2021), and that legitimacy is closely tied to institutional logic (Harman, 2016; Weinryb, 2020).

While scholars such as Maclean et al. (2021) warn that elite philanthropy may displace or dilute public accountability, the leaders in this study emphasize community-rooted partnerships and transparent participatory decision-making as intentional safeguards. Notwithstanding these positive intentions, this reveals the critical tension that philanthropic governance is often defined and assessed internally, raising the risk of self-presentation bias. In the absence of independent oversight, values such as humility, trust and inclusion remain aspirational rather than enforceable, although repeatedly emphasized. This risk is compounded by the broader trend of increased scrutiny of foundation operations (Moran and Stevenson, 2013; Rey-Garcia et al., 2012). The interviews in this study reflect a notable degree of reflexivity, while also underscoring that legitimacy is often self-constructed and may lack external accountability. For practitioners, this affirms the urgency of embedding external accountability mechanisms, cross-sector deliberation and ethical codes of governance beyond compliance to enact participatory stewardship.

Innovation, as described by the participants, was not framed as disruption for its own sake, but as a means to create adaptive, inclusive systems. Philanthropic leaders emphasized interdisciplinary collaboration, emerging technologies and data-informed experimentation, with a particular emphasis on education, health and climate. These efforts increasingly rely on community-generated data and digital platforms to enhance responsiveness and localized decision-making (Katapally and Bhawra, 2024). While some embrace catalytic innovation that simplifies access and challenges institutional inertia (Christensen et al., 2006), participants resisted “silver bullet” thinking, recognizing that complex development problems demand context-sensitive, community-rooted approaches (Macnaghten, 2020).

This framing calls for innovation that bridges ambition with accountability and responds to Kumar’s (2022) view of philanthropy as a modernizing force. However, participants expressed awareness of critiques, especially when it concerned the overreach of business and philanthropy (Bishop and Green, 2015). They actively sought to mitigate these through proximity, co-creation and transparent iterations. From this perspective, ethical innovation is relational and reflexive and shaped by local expertise and accountable design. For practitioners, this underscores the importance of participatory innovation models, human-centered evaluation and embedded learning loops to ensure that innovation remains inclusive, sustainable and socially legitimate.

The findings in this study challenge the reductive portrayals of philanthropists as altruistic heroes or self-interested elites. Instead, they reveal that actors engage in a nuanced, reflexive practice that contends with ethical complexity, negotiates power and strives for legitimacy through proximity, discipline, collaboration and impact. These philanthropic leaders do not position themselves as substitutes for the state or agents of market expansion, but as system-minded contributors seeking to align private resources with public value. When grounded in ethical commitments and held to meaningful standards of accountability, their work highlights the potential for philanthropy to serve as a constructive, albeit imperfect, partner in addressing shared global challenges.

To guide such practices, this study proposes a three-part framework grounded in the lived realities articulated by practitioners. The three interconnected domains of praxis are as follows:

1. Public value and ethical commitment: Position philanthropic action as an enabler of community agency by embedding legitimacy through inclusion, co-creation and long-term presence. This domain foregrounds the ethical obligation to support rather than supplant local systems, especially in contexts in which public services are weakened.

2. Internal capacity and systems integrity: Strengthen organizational accountability through transparent governance, data-informed decision-making and adaptive operational systems. This domain reflects a shift from performative reporting to embedded ethical routines that translates intent into institutional integrity.

3. External collaboration and trust building: Foster partnerships across sectors through structured stakeholder engagement, participatory power analysis and joint planning. This domain recognizes that durable impact depends on shared ownership and the intentional alignment of public and private values.

This practitioner framework addresses a pressing gap as public aid contracts and private influence expand. It offers a path for philanthropy to serve as a catalytic partner, not an unaccountable substitute, for public problem-solving. Rooting this model in the lived strategies of experienced global philanthropic leaders extends the literature on stakeholder governance (Freeman, 2010), institutional ethics (Scherer and Palazzo, 2012), and philanthropic legitimacy (Weinryb, 2020; Williamson and Luke, 2021), while confronting Reich’s (2020) critique of unchecked private power.

This study foregrounds the perspectives of elite actors and, as such, invites scrutiny of self-presentation and potential blind spots. Nonetheless, it reveals the values, operational logic, and guardrails philanthropic leaders use to shape their roles. Future research should triangulate these insights with voices from recipient communities, independent evaluators and public sector counterparts to assess whether these internal commitments translate into systems change and the extent to which these are equitable and sustainable. Still, the narratives in this study provide a rare window into how leading philanthropic actors understand their responsibility not only to deliver outcomes but also to be accountable for the means by which those outcomes are achieved.

This study examined the practice of strategic philanthropy from the perspective of global philanthropic leaders, revealing a reflexive field that blends business strategy with ethical responsibility to address complex social challenges. Rather than reinforcing binary depictions of philanthropists as altruistic or self-interested, the findings highlight an evolving approach grounded in proximity, systems thinking and commitment to legitimacy.

The proposed framework focuses on public value, internal systems and external collaboration, and offers practical guidance for practitioners navigating a landscape marked by declining public aid and rising private influence. It supports a model of philanthropy, which is both disciplined and accountable and capable of advancing structural change without displacing local agency.

While this study centers on elite voices, it also surfaces a self-critical awareness of power and responsibility. Still, future research must engage non-elite perspectives and assess long-term outcomes to fully understand the role of philanthropy in shaping equitable systems. As global challenges intensify, the insights shared here point to a version of philanthropy that, when anchored in humility and a shared purpose, has the potential to act as a partner in their renewal rather than as a substitute for public systems.

This study required no formal ethical approval or informed consent, as it analyzes pre-existing, voluntarily disseminated public statements (YouTube interviews) and involves no direct interaction with human subjects or private data.