Philanthropy and Social Impact

Do we really need institutionalized feminism? Events from the past few weeks brought up this question for me again. I am open to being challenged about this. But the more I do this work, the more I see an uncomfortable trend taking shape in the feminist movement world. Feminist movements are considered more 'credible' and 'fundable' when they get (hyper)-institutionalized. When institutionalization happens (in great dependency on governmental or institutional funding), often the core, grassroots values from where feminist movements have originally emerged are compromised over norms that benefit institutional mechanisms. It's an adaptive and often necessary process. The problem? Feminist activism just ends up being commodified by institutional etiquette, politics and norms, which are often a by-product of systems of inequalities. For funders, donors and philanthropists, institutionalized feminist movements will always be safer than grassroots feminist movements. Because they play by the same rules. Those of power, privilege, and oppressive norms. Observing this pattern makes me bolder and louder about the URGENT need to mobilize funds for community-centric, grassroots and activist-led feminist movements. Pushing for resourcing feminist rights defenders, over institutions' defenders is also part of how we do this work right.

People sometimes see Acumen raising large amounts of commercial capital and assume we no longer need philanthropy. No sooner had we announced $250M for our Hardest-to-Reach fund — to bring off-grid light and electricity to 70 million people across 17 of Africa’s most challenging markets — than some concluded Acumen must be set. In fact, the opposite is true. First, let me acknowledge how tough this fundraising environment is. I couldn’t be prouder of the team and partners who made our Hardest-to-Reach announcement possible after 2.5 years of relentless effort. And yet it’s worth underscoring: none of this would have been possible without philanthropy. Philanthropy is the first mover. It allows us to place early bets in fragile markets like Malawi and Benin, cover the development costs needed to structure and raise investment across the capital spectrum and provide the technical assistance that builds capacity. To put a finer point on it: of the nearly $250M raised for Hardest-to-Reach, more than $80M is philanthropic. That risk-taking anchor made it possible to prove new models — and ultimately unlock institutional investment. During Climate Week last month, I met philanthropists who see this as the time to pivot from grantmaking toward impact investing. While I understand the instinct, I want to offer a reframing: it’s not either/or. If you want your capital to have lasting impact, there may be no better use than catalytic philanthropy — especially when deployed through blended finance models like Hardest-to-Reach. Philanthropy cannot see itself at the margins. It is catalytic capital — risk-taking, patient, and unabashedly impact-first — creating the conditions for commercial capital to follow. And it's more important now than ever as traditional aid shrinks and many governments shift from grants to investment approaches. At Acumen, philanthropy from donors at all levels remains our bedrock. It enables us to reach the hardest-to-reach, build inclusive markets where none exist, and keep social impact at the center of everything we do. And because solving problems of poverty is Acumen’s mission, raising philanthropic capital will remain essential to our work.

A milestone for climate justice: today the Inter‑American Court of Human Rights delivered its long‑awaited advisory opinion on climate change and human rights, requested by Chile and Colombia in 2023. The Court unanimously confirms that a safe, stable climate is part of the right to a healthy environment protected by the American Convention and that States must take affirmative measures—through laws, policies and ecosystem restoration—to prevent, mitigate and remedy climate harm, both within their borders and extraterritorially. The opinion goes further than any previous regional or international climate ruling in articulating climate obligations of States under human rights law. It stresses common but differentiated responsibilities, highlights States' obligations to regulate major emitters and combat disinformation campaigns, and singles out the heightened vulnerability—and corresponding rights—of Indigenous peoples, children and future generations. Moreover, the Court establishes that the obligation not to cause irreversible damage to climate and environment has the character of a peremptory norm of international law. For courts, legislators and negotiators, this is a transformative interpretive benchmark. It will inform domestic and regional climate litigation, reshape environmental governance across Latin America and the Caribbean, and lend authoritative weight to parallel processes such as the pending International Court of Justice advisory opinion on climate change and the push for greater mitigation ambition and finance at COP 30 in Belém. As counsel for Vanuatu in these proceedings, I am heartened by the Court’s clarity: human rights law demands decisive climate action, and reparation is due where neglecting this duty has already caused harm. The task for all of us—lawyers, policymakers, scholars and advocates—is to translate today’s jurisprudence into concrete, rights‑based measures that protect people and planet alike.

Most social enterprises succeed or stall in the early phase, before product-market fit, before revenue, and before traditional capital takes interest. This is where philanthropy becomes catalytic. Flexible, patient, and impact-first capital helps visionary founders build momentum, pilot solutions, and prepare for long-term sustainability. The potential is enormous. According to the GIIN, global philanthropic capital exceeds $800 billion. Yet, less than 3% of global philanthropic capital flows to early-stage social enterprises. The majority still supports established NGOs or post-scale interventions. Meanwhile, early-stage founders tackling systemic problems, especially in emerging markets, are left underfunded and overlooked. That capital, when applied intentionally, can transform high-potential ideas into scalable, investable solutions. We are already seeing it in action. Organizations like Mulago, Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation, and the Skoll Foundation are leading the way. Blended finance models from Village Capital and Acumen are showing how early philanthropic support can unlock follow-on funding and long-term success. We don’t need more capital. We need smarter capital. Capital that’s willing to go in first. To absorb risk. To help build the bridge from idea to investment. Let’s stop treating philanthropy as the end of the road. Let’s use it instead to start new ones.

Philanthropy’s irony: funding inequality unequally. The data are damning. 🙅🏽 Local and national NGOs receive just 0.4% of all international aid. ♀️ Only one in 100 gender equality dollars goes to feminist organizations. ✊🏾 Black-led nonprofits hold 76% fewer unrestricted assets than white-led counterparts. 🌍 5.2% of U.S. foundation grants to Sub-Saharan Africa go to African-led organizations. 🌱 Half of climate change philanthropy goes to just 20 orgs — 90% white-led, 80% male-led. 🫶🏾 Endowments at BIPOC-led orgs are 4x smaller than at white-led orgs. ⛑️ Refugee-run organizations are granted less than 1% of humanitarian aid. 🤷🏾♀️ Indigenous Peoples are 6.2% of the global population, but get just 0.4% of U.S. and 0.5% of Australian philanthropy. And on and on. “To sum it up: when it comes to getting or giving access to money, white men are usually in charge, and everyone else has to be twice as good (or more) to get half as much (or less),” says Edgar Villanueva. That’s why I say — Fighting one injustice (global inequality)... by perpetuating another injustice (keeping local, BIPOC, feminist, refugee, and Indigenous leaders in the #nonprofit starvation cycle)... 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙚. Decolonizing wealth? Years of talk. Localization? Decades discussed. Gender equality? Centuries old. Racial reckoning? Since 2020. So how do we flip the script on this funding disparity? It isn’t rocket science or bureaucratic gymnastics. We’re not awaiting a tech unicorn, policy overhaul, or think tank blueprint. The fix is clear. Fund locally-led nonprofits. Fund BIPOC-led nonprofits. Fund refugee-led nonprofits. Fund feminist-led nonprofits. Fund Indigenous-led nonprofits. The worthy organizations are there. The worthy leaders are there. The worthy impact is there. “There is power in proximity. Shifting our giving… is not only more just – it is more effective,” said Katie Bunten-Wamaru and Dedo N. Baranshamaje. “Grassroots organisations are consistently delivering impact at the frontlines — without the benefit of frontline funding.” The money is also there. “Foundations’ endowments currently account for well over $1 trillion, while about $160 billion more sits in donor-advised funds,” says Philip Rojc. “... wealth inequality continues to skyrocket as the fortunes of the very rich climb over the long term.” This is also a call to arms for #brand builders and storytellers. Build the brands of these nonprofits. Ensure they’re too compelling to ignore, too loud to silence, and too fundable to underfund. And keep this new narrative alive. Put heat on the gatekeepers of #philanthropy. Because this funding gap is a justice gap. So comment and repost below to be a part of the change. Let’s close the gap together. 💪🏽💛 ________________________________ If you enjoyed this daily brand insight: 1. Follow Kevin L. Brown to maximize your funding 2. Click the 🔔 to get notified about new posts 3. Engage below 👇🏽

As a storyteller and an entrepreneur, I’ve had the privilege of sitting down with some of the most inspiring women in business— women who are not only breaking barriers but also redefining success on their own terms. Whether it’s Alia Bhatt with her conscious kidswear brand Edamama, Romita Mazumdar with her innovative skincare venture Foxtale, Anupama Chopra with her pioneering platform Film Companion, or Upasana Kamineni Konidela’s trailblazing work in healthcare—each of them has brought invaluable insights to the table. Here are a few lessons that have deeply resonated with me from these conversations: 👉The Importance of Identifying a Gap – Alia Bhatt: Alia saw the need for sustainable, homegrown kidswear and built Ed-a-Mamma, not just as a brand but as a movement to inspire environmental consciousness from an early age. Alia didn’t wait for expertise—she led with passion, proving that vision and heart can drive a brand to incredible heights. 👉Carving your own Path — Anupama Chopra: Anupama Chopra taught me the power of knowing your strengths. She realized she wasn’t meant for spreadsheets and P&Ls, but for storytelling. From becoming a film critic to launching Film Companion, and now expanding into Hollywood, Anupama constantly reinvents herself while staying true to her core passion. She’s a reminder that when you carve your own path, the world takes notice. 👉A Woman NEEDS to be Financially Independent — Upasana Kamineni Konidela: Upasana Kamineni Konidela exemplifies the power of financial independence. Through her work in healthcare, she’s seen how giving women control over their own money not only boosts their confidence but transforms their entire lives. It’s not just about earning—it’s about gaining respect, making decisions for themselves, and creating a better future for their families. 👉Actual Impact over Trends & Profits — Romita Mazumdar: Romita’s skincare venture, Foxtale, wasn’t built on trends but on understanding the real needs of Indian women. She didn’t just want customers; she wanted to build trust. Romita’s dedication to creating effective, science-backed products shows how focusing on impact creates long-lasting success. These women remind us that business isn’t just about numbers or growth, but about the values you stand for, the people you serve, and the story you tell. Grateful for the wisdom they’ve shared, and excited to continue learning from those who dare to lead with purpose. #WomenInBusiness #Leadership #Entrepreneurship #LessonsInBusiness

AI systems built without women's voices miss half the world and actively distort reality for everyone. On International Women's Day - and every day - this truth demands our attention. After more than two decades working at the intersection of technological innovation and human rights, I've observed a consistent pattern: systems designed without inclusive input inevitably encode the inequalities of the world we have today, incorporating biases in data, algorithms, and even policy. Building technology that works requires our shared participation as the foundation of effective innovation. The data is sobering: women represent only 30% of the AI workforce and a mere 12% of AI research and development positions according to UNESCO's Gender and AI Outlook. This absence shapes the technology itself. And a UNESCO study on Large Language Models (LLMs) found persistent gender biases - where female names were disproportionately linked to domestic roles, while male names were associated with leadership and executive careers. UNESCO's @women4EthicalAI initiative, led by the visionary and inspiring Gabriela Ramos and Dr. Alessandra Sala, is fighting this pattern by developing frameworks for non-discriminatory AI and pushing for gender equity in technology leadership. Their work extends the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, a powerful global standard centering human rights in AI governance. Today's decision is whether AI will transform our world into one that replicates today's inequities or helps us build something better. Examine your AI teams and processes today. Where are the gaps in representation affecting your outcomes? Document these blind spots, set measurable inclusion targets, and build accountability systems that outlast good intentions. The technology we create reflects who creates it - and gives us a path to a better world. #InternationalWomensDay #AI #GenderBias #EthicalAI #WomenInAI #UNESCO #ArtificialIntelligence The Patrick J. McGovern Foundation Mariagrazia Squicciarini Miriam Vogel Vivian Schiller Karen Gill Mary Rodriguez, MBA Erika Quada Mathilde Barge Gwen Hotaling Yolanda Botti-Lodovico

Following USAID's funding freeze, the UK government has also announced cuts to its international ‘aid’ budget. While these cuts will impact organizations across the development and humanitarian sectors, they will hit grassroots and feminist organizations the hardest—especially those working on issues that are already overlooked and underfunded. For years, women-led, feminist, and grassroots organizations have struggled to access even the smallest amounts of funding. Now, with over $60 billion annually (or even more) in cuts in international development funding, these organizations will find it even harder to access resources. Yes, we can debate the bureaucratic power imbalances that institutions like USAID have reinforced between funders and implementing organizations and the unequal playing field. But we cannot deny that lives are at stake. And maybe this is the time we can interrogate how we can create a funding ecosystem that is actually just, equitable, and capable of addressing structural and systemic challenges. As development practitioners, a few things we need to explore: First, how do we create a balance between responding to urgent humanitarian crises and investing in long-term solutions? Important life-saving programs are in crisis, and while we need to mobilize funding for them, we also need to think about channeling funds to solutions that last. Second, I cannot emphasize enough the need to fund grassroots movements and community-led organizations. We will never be able to address structural issues if sustainable, long-term, flexible funding is not channeled to grassroots-led solutions and if the power is not shifted back to the communities. This needs to be the topmost priority for funders right now. Third, can we rethink how individual philanthropy and crowdfunding work? How can we mobilize and encourage individual donors and philanthropic organizations to move away from one-off campaigns and short-term initiatives and instead invest in long-term change? Fourth, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funding is such an untapped resource. Can corporations / private-sector build meaningful, long-term partnerships with grassroots movements instead of just funding feel-good initiatives? #USAID #feministorganizations #grassrootsorganizations #gender #fundingfreeze

Flo Health is the world's first femtech unicorn (yay) but it's also founded and funded by men (hmm) It's great that women's health is gaining more recognition, given the vast inequality in funding, research, and focus... BUT It also exposes a huge problem with the startup ecosystem. → Just 2% of global VC funding goes to women (WEF) → Women's presence on pitches is *neutral at best* and becomes negative when women don't embody typically female traits (Harvard) → Investors prefer pitches presented by men - when presented with two identical pitches, 68% funded the startup pitched by a man and 31% funded the exact same startup pitched by a woman (Harvard) → 83% of investment committees have no female members (British Business Bank) Women are discriminated against at all stages of the investment process. → Women are asked more negative questions around risk and worst-case scenarios, whereas men are asked about opportunity and opportunity (Harvard) → Women have to fight against preconceptions, we are judged more frequently, and held to higher standards (Yale) Ultimately, people with the most privilege raise the most money, and I count myself in that bucket as I am a white, privately educated female. → Just 0.5% of funding goes to black founders (WEF) → 79% of VC Seed funding for diverse founders (which is a tiny amount) goes to white women (BBG Ventures) There is SO much inequality in the startup world, and it's talked about but never taken seriously. Instead, female founders are assumed to be running businesses that aren't VC-backable, or that there just aren't enough of us. This is an uncomfortable topic, but the only way we can improve this system is to educate people about the huge inequality that exists in a sector awash with bonkers amounts of capital. Flexa #Startups #Fundraising #Inequality

SDGs and Carbon Credits 🌎 Carbon credits, particularly from the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM), offer companies a pathway not only to achieve decarbonization but also to address broader sustainability objectives. These credits can contribute to various targets such as natural resource conservation, biodiversity protection, and socio-economic development, thereby supporting multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Nature-based solutions (NCS) and technology-based solutions (TbS) represent two primary categories of projects within the carbon credit system. NCS projects often generate substantial co-benefits, including biodiversity protection and enhancements in soil, air, and water quality. These projects directly support ecosystem services and climate adaptation efforts while improving livelihoods through job creation in areas like nursery management and landscape restoration. Similarly, TbS projects like direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) contribute to industrial development and innovation. These projects typically offer measurable and permanent impacts but may also present challenges, such as significant energy requirements and potential conflicts over land use. The balance of these factors must be carefully managed to optimize both environmental and social outcomes. The selection of specific projects by businesses can vary based on their sustainability goals. For instance, companies may prefer forestry projects for their dual benefits of biodiversity conservation and socio-economic development, or they might opt for DACCS projects to stimulate technological advancement and infrastructure growth. Each type of project aligns with specific SDGs in distinct ways. Forestry projects, for example, are integral to achieving goals like Zero Hunger through the support of agro-ecosystems, Gender Equality by empowering women in community forest management, and Life on Land by maintaining biodiversity. Additionally, these projects support Decent Work and Economic Growth by revitalizing rural economies. Ultimately, the strategic use of carbon credits in NCS and TbS projects offers a robust method for companies to extend their impact beyond mere emissions reductions. It is essential, however, to recognize that carbon credits cannot substitute for the fundamental need to decarbonize operations and value chains. Companies must prioritize direct reductions in their carbon emissions as the cornerstone of their environmental strategy. Utilizing carbon credits should be seen as a supplementary measure, supporting and extending the reach of these primary decarbonization efforts. Source: WBCSD – World Business Council for Sustainable Development #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #climateaction #strategy #sdgs #sustainabledevelopment