What France’s Senate report on private philanthropy funding means for Europe

On 7 July 2026, the French Senate’s inquiry commission on the private financing of public policy adopted its report after six months of work, 66 sessions and 102 hearings, among them a joint hearing with Philea, EFA and ERNOP on 12 May. The commission was launched in response to concern over coordinated, ideologically driven funding strategies operating under the guise of philanthropy, most notably a network of foundations linked to a French businessman openly promoting a right-wing and far-right political agenda. The commission’s 32 recommendations aim to tighten transparency around private funding while explicitly preserving philanthropy’s role in democratic life.

A clear recognition of philanthropy

The inquiry commission explicitly recognises philanthropy’s contribution to funding the public interest, social innovation and democracy. The Commission does not question philanthropy’s legitimacy. The senators conclude that the existing legal framework for associations, foundations and endowment funds is broadly sound. Their recommendations follow one consistent line: apply existing law better, rather than overburden it with new procedures. The Commission pointed to the necessity of investing in human resources and tools for oversight bodies, training for public administrations and auditors, better information-sharing between government departments, improved sector statistics and a sanctions regime that scales with the severity of the breach. It also proposes consolidating France’s foundation categories into four broad types and easing access to public-benefit foundation status. Endowment funds (fonds de dotation) draw the sharpest attention, with specific recommendations on governance and on dissolving inactive structures.

A neutrality injunction that reflects a broader European trend

The Commission devotes an entire section to what it calls the “encroachment of influence strategies” on public policy, which it attributes to the opacity of certain private structures, and asks whether such funding is compatible with the impartiality expected of public action, with democratic oversight, and with the objectives of public policy itself. While this line of questioning stems from a legitimate concern for transparency, it echoes a broader, already documented trend: the growing pressure on civil society organisations to demonstrate political neutrality.

This ambiguity is not unique to France. Across Europe, civil society organisations seeking public or private funding are increasingly required to prove either that they have no political agenda, or that the one they have is compatible with public policy. This tension is visible even within the European Commission itself, where NGOs have faced pressure to soften how they describe their own advocacy work.[1] The same underlying issue shows up in different forms depending on the institution, but the direction is the same.

Institutional dialogue

While the report affirms philanthropy’s democratic role, keeps the current legal framework mostly intact and prioritises enforcement over new rules, the Commission has not taken up the sector’s recommendation of better structuring dialogue between national representative bodies and public authorities. It cites foreign models, Italy’s and the UK’s in particular, but fails to propose a permanent body for consultation between the state and philanthropy’s representatives. Better dialogue would help both sides understand each other, anticipate risks and build regulation that holds up over time, something French actors have been advocating for some time.

Taken together, the report is good news for philanthropy’s legitimacy yet challenging associations’ and foundations’ capacity to shape public policy is particularly worrying when civic space is already closing in across Europe.

The full analysis can be accessed here: https://www.francegenerosites.org/actualites/transparence-influence-et-controle-democratique-des-financements-prives-de-laction-publique-synthese/ (in French).

[1] Louise Guillot, Florence Autret, “ONG: cachez ce lobbying que Bruxelles ne saurait voir,” Contexte, July 2026.

Philea informed the French Senate Commission (additional context by Hanna Surmatz, Philea’s Head of Policy):

Philea was one of the organisations that contributed to one of the public hearings of the French Enquête Commission. We shared an overview of the size of the European foundation sector and some of our legal analysis of the European landscape. We highlighted that comparative analysis of the legal and fiscal environments of foundations and philanthropic organisations across Europe is a challenging exercise since no common European legal definitions of these terms exist, and legal traditions vary, as do the historical and cultural contexts.

There was clear interest by the Enquête Commission in understanding how foundations across Europe are regulated from a transparency perspective. We stated that the rules governing the activities and transparency of philanthropic organisations are generally a combination of foundation law, public-benefit law and tax law as well as laws issued to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing. According to our assessment, the combination of those rules generally ensures a proper functioning of the sector and limits abuse and criminal behaviour to the greatest extent possible, taking a risk-based approach.

We also stated that transparency and accountability requirements have tightened over the past 20 years with even cases of overregulation being of concern in some EU Member States. We mentioned that most Member States put foundations as entities without members and shareholders under some type of state (or court) supervision. In addition, there are self-regulation efforts happening in most European countries. At least the financial part of the foundation’s reporting is submitted to one or several external authorities, be this the tax authority, or a state or independent supervisory authority, or a combination of these.

The majority of countries also require that foundations report annually on their activities. In most countries, at least the financial reports of a foundation are publicly available. External audits of larger foundations’ financial statements are required in most of the countries surveyed.

When it comes to political activities of foundations, one needs to make a clear distinction: While party political activities are generally not allowed for foundations across all Member States, public-benefit foundations should be allowed to contribute and participate in policymaking as other actors in society, be it through contributions to consultations or via supporting expertise/analysis or exchanges on a certain topic as long as this is in line with their mission and follows relevant transparency and accountability regulations. We hence consider that our input supported the spirit of many of the Commission’s recommendations such as to apply existing law better, rather than overburden it with new procedures. Discussions around neutrality versus a more political role continue at Member States and EU level. More dialogue among the philanthropy sector and public actors are needed to embed the understanding that foundations have a legitimate role to play in this as other actors in society.