Beyond the myth of big philanthropy

Philanthropy plays a key role in Europe’s civic, social and democratic life. Yet in many parts of Europe and beyond, public debate about philanthropy has become increasingly misinformed. Philanthropy is treated only as the activity of large, endowed institutions, which is a perspective missing the diversity of actors, motivations and practices that make up Europe’s giving landscape. 

The evidence emerging from the ERNOP’s Philanthropy in Europe study, read alongside Philea’s The Fabric of Giving 2025, points to a richer and more complex reality. Foundation activities are expanding in several countries. It is becoming more visible, more specialised and, in some places, more formalised. But philanthropy in Europe is not only foundation philanthropy. It is an ecosystem made up of individuals, families, companies, bequests, charity lotteries, operating foundations, grantmaking foundations, hybrid organisations, community philanthropy, local giving, cross-border giving and many forms of solidarity that do not always fit neatly into official categories. 

The ERNOP study estimates that philanthropic giving across 20 European countries amounts to at least €104.5 billion per year. This is a lower-bound estimate, shaped by uneven data availability and different national systems for recording giving. Individuals remain the largest source, contributing around €52 billion annually. Corporations contribute around €21.5 billion. Foundations provide approximately €20.6 billion in grants derived from endowments. Bequests account for around €8.4 billion, while charity lotteries contribute around €1.9 billion. 

In this picture, the category “foundation” includes enormous diversity. There is no single foundation model in Europe. Some foundations are large, endowed and international. Others are small, local and rooted in a specific community. Some make grants to civil society organisations or individuals. Others operate programmes directly. Some manage museums, hospitals, think-tanks, universities or cultural institutions. Some are linked to families, companies, or even own some of Europe’s largest companies. Others work internationally, while many are deeply local. Some have their own sources of income and endowment while others raise funds from the public, companies, partner organisations or public authorities. Some combine several of these characteristics. 

This diversity is also reflected in the way philanthropy is measured. ERNOP’s Philanthropy in Europe study tracks philanthropic giving across 20 countries and estimates that foundations contribute around €20.6 billion annually through grants derived from endowments. Philea’s The Fabric of Giving 2025, by contrast, maps the institutional foundation landscape across 34 countries, identifying around 175,000 public-benefit foundations with €516 billion in assets and €76 billion in annual expenditure.

These figures are not directly comparable because they measure different aspects of foundation activity. ERNOP focuses on philanthropic capital distributed through grants from endowed foundations and excludes foundation expenditure of funds collected from the public, other partner organisations companies or public authorities.

Irrespective of whether the resources stem from an endowment or other sources, Philea captures total foundation expenditure, including operating costs and programme delivery, and includes operating foundations such as museums, hospitals and cultural institutions. Together, the two studies provide complementary perspectives: One on the flow of philanthropic giving by endowed foundations and the other on a wider concept of foundation resourcing and expenditure.

In addition to measuring philanthropic giving, these studies expose the uneven quality of philanthropy data across Europe. Comparing evidence across countries makes clear that visibility often depends as much on data infrastructure as on philanthropic activity itself.

In countries with reliable registers, reporting systems and research capacity, philanthropy is easier to observe and analyse. Elsewhere, significant parts of the sector remain statistically invisible. Germany, Austria, Sweden and Switzerland illustrate how data collection systems make philanthropic activity more visible, while gaps in data collection leave other parts of Europe far less understood.

This is what ERNOP describes as a “picture by night”: some areas are brightly lit, others are dim, and some are almost invisible. The challenge is not only uneven giving, but uneven visibility.

This uneven visibility has consequences. Where data is weak, philanthropy’s contribution is difficult to measure, compare and understand. It becomes harder to assess how giving responds to crises, economic change or shifts in public policy, and easier to treat a diverse field as if it were a single actor.

Better data should therefore be seen as part of philanthropy’s enabling environment, alongside legal frameworks, fiscal incentives and civic space. Building it requires more than a single database. Europe needs clearer definitions, better use of administrative and tax data, and regular data collection that brings together surveys, organisational accounts and sector-led research.

Practical models already exist. In the UK, the 360Giving Data Standard provides a common format for publishing open grants data, while GrantNav makes that information searchable and reusable. Germany’s forthcoming nationwide foundation register, expected from 2028, will provide a public record of foundation names, seats, recognition dates and governance structures. These examples illustrate how information and data on philanthropy depends on multiple layers of infrastructure, from public registers and administrative data to shared standards and accessible platforms.

Foundations also have a role to play. In addition to data collected by registers/authorities, they can publish proportionate information on assets, expenditure, grantmaking and sources of income, while aligning their reporting with shared taxonomies. In Belgium, the King Baudouin Foundation has revised its grant taxonomy with Candid and worked towards alignment with frameworks such as the SDGs and OECD classifications. The International Classification of Non-Profit Organisations provides another basis for a shared language across the sector. Foundations can also support national data initiatives and invest in the research capacity needed to sustain them.

At European level, these efforts are increasingly coordinated through initiatives such as EPIC (Empowering Philanthropy Infrastructure for Change), co-funded by the EU under the CERV programme. Through EPIC, philanthropy infrastructure organisations are working with partners including ERNOP to strengthen data, improve comparability and build a more coherent evidence base for philanthropy across Europe.

Collecting more data on philanthropy and foundations is of interest not only to the sector itself and policymakers but also to the general public. Yet it remains underfunded. Universities, research networks, statistical offices and sector organisations need sustained resources to collect, analyse and publish reliable information. Supporting this infrastructure should be part of philanthropy’s field-building role.

Better data will not answer every question about philanthropy, but it will make the sector easier to understand, assess and discuss. That is an important foundation for effective policy, stronger research and informed public debate.