Philanthropy in Europe has proven to be resilient and stable. But it is not growing. Now it must demonstrate whether it is also capable of holding its own in a changing environment. At a time when it is increasingly being called into question, it has a greater need for a reliable data foundation to defend itself.
On paper, European philanthropy is doing well. The latest report from the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP) shows that at least 104.5 billion euros are donated annually. The study covers the total amount of donations from households, businesses, foundations, and charity lotteries in 23 countries. That’s a staggering sum. This confirms that philanthropy plays a significant role in European societies. But numbers rarely tell the whole story.
When we examine the context behind this figure, a more nuanced picture emerges. In the current political climate, it is of far greater significance. A comparison of the results with those of the 2017 study shows that the growth of philanthropy in Europe is by no means clear-cut. However, the expectations placed on philanthropy certainly are. The real question is not whether philanthropy is growing. The real question is: Can philanthropy meet the rising expectations placed on it without an increase in resources?
Snapshots
It is tempting to compare the current figure of 104.5 billion euros in 2022 with earlier estimates of 87.5 billion euros in 2013 and conclude that philanthropic funding is on the rise. However, this conclusion does not hold up to scrutiny, even if we consider only the figures from the 18 countries included in both editions. In this case, 102.4 billion euros (2022) is compared with 87.5 billion euros (2013). The two studies do not constitute a time series. They are two snapshots taken from different perspectives. Differences in data availability, definitions, and measurement methods mean that apparent changes are often due more to the nature of the measurement than to the actual volume of donations.
The most meaningful comparison is the overall level of donations in each country. Data for both years is available for this. But even when derived from these figures, the picture that emerges is sobering. In nominal terms, the willingness to donate has risen by 17 percent. Adjusted for inflation, however, it has remained virtually unchanged at –1.7 percent. Perhaps even more concerning is that donations as a share of GDP have declined. Part of the apparent growth is attributable to improved measurement methods in some countries and not necessarily to more generous behavior. This does not render comparisons meaningless; however, they should be viewed with caution.
The most important insight, then, does not concern growth. It is resilience. Philanthropy has held its ground despite crises, pandemics, and political upheavals. However, it has not fundamentally increased its share of societal resources. That would be fine, were it not for the fact that expectations have changed.
Structural Tensions
Governments across Europe are under pressure. Public funds are becoming increasingly scarce. Governments must manage emerging crises while others have not even been resolved yet. On top of that, political priorities are shifting. In some areas, the state is withdrawing—not always explicitly, but in practice. At the same time, expectations of philanthropy are rising. It is increasingly expected to fill gaps, respond to crises, address systemic problems, and, in some cases, compensate for the withdrawal of the public sector. This creates a structural tension. For while expectations are rising, the underlying available resources are not keeping pace.
At the same time, philanthropy is operating in a changing political climate. Across Europe, trust in institutions is under pressure. Public debate is becoming increasingly polarized. And actors associated with wealth, international networks, or influence not legitimized by elections are coming under ever-greater scrutiny. Philanthropy finds itself right at this intersection.
This critical analysis is no longer purely theoretical. In France, the Senate has launched an investigation into the mechanisms through which public policy is funded by private organizations, companies, or foundations, as well as the associated risks regarding influence, lack of financial transparency, and interference in the functioning of democracy. This line of inquiry is telling. It does not assume that a contribution is being made. Rather, it first identifies a potential risk.
At the same time, developments in countries such as Hungary highlight another dimension. Philanthropy itself remains a presence. People donate—often generously—especially in times of crisis. Yet the infrastructure surrounding philanthropy can become weaker. In the decade between the first and second editions of “Philanthropy in Europe,” data collection has declined. It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain a systematic understanding of the field.
These are clearly not identical trends. Yet together, they point in the same direction. Philanthropy operates in an environment that is becoming less and less predictable and less and less inherently conducive to its goals.
Difficult to measure
One of the study’s most important findings is not the 104.5 billion euros—even though that figure represents a lower bound. Rather, it is the fact that large portions of philanthropy remain difficult to measure. Regular donations from private households—which, at 52 billion euros, account for nearly half of the total volume of philanthropy in Europe—can be tracked relatively well. With another form of donations from private households—bequests (8.4 billion euros)—the situation is practically the opposite. Across Europe, there is very little representative data. The data on corporate donations (21.5 billion euros) and foundation donations (20.6 billion euros) is diverse, and it is difficult to truly determine what counts as the original source of a donation. And when we look at how the donations are used, it becomes even more complicated.
Yet even within the limited comparisons we can make, the patterns differ greatly. Donations from private households appear largely stable, but are becoming increasingly concentrated. Corporate donations appear to have declined in real terms, despite increasing ESG rhetoric. Donations from foundations are relatively stable, but they are difficult to distinguish from donations made by corporations and high-net-worth individuals. Furthermore, it is not always clear whether the original source of the donations comes from the foundation’s endowment. Bequests are showing strong growth in some countries, though this growth is often driven by a small number of individual cases.
In many cases, what appears to be a trend turns out to be a measurement artifact or the result of a single dominant country. What we see is shaped as much by the data as by reality.
Focus on Legitimacy
Traditionally, discussions about philanthropy have focused on performance: How can we donate more effectively, how can we measure impact, and how can we improve our strategy? These questions remain important. But we might ask ourselves whether they are still enough. After all, the focus is increasingly shifting from effectiveness to legitimacy. Philanthropy exists because the state allows private wealth to be used for public purposes under favorable conditions. This arrangement depends on public consent. And as soon as that consent is made conditional, philanthropy shifts from an accepted practice to a controversial one. In a context where even established democracies are openly questioning the influence and transparency of philanthropic actors, the burden of proof is shifting. Philanthropy must be able to demonstrate, convincingly and consistently, what distinguishes it from other forms of power and influence.
Europe is not lacking in philanthropy. What is missing is a shared, robust knowledge infrastructure that enables philanthropy to demonstrate its impact, participate in policy debates, and respond to criticism with evidence rather than assertions. In many fields, legitimacy is underpinned by professional standards, academic research, and institutionalized knowledge. In philanthropy, this foundation remains thin and fragmented. And this is not merely an academic problem. It is a structural weakness.
For years, the sector has been discussing the need for better data. This discussion remains valid. However, it needs to be refocused. It is not about creating perfect datasets. It is about building capacity. It is about the ability to recognize changes over time, understand what is happening, and respond when the environment shifts. This ability becomes particularly important when public data sources cannot be taken for granted, political priorities shift, or the legitimacy of philanthropy itself is called into question. In this sense, investing in knowledge is not a luxury. It is a form of foresight.
Strategic Measures
And it doesn’t require large-scale, centralized solutions. It can start on a simpler scale, for example, by improving existing data. Existing data can be consolidated on a shared data platform. The focus is on specific areas of philanthropy rather than tackling the entire issue at once. Or one could consider leaner, standardized approaches that make national data comparable without overburdening local systems. These are not expensive measures. But they are strategic measures. Because they create something that philanthropy currently lacks: a more stable foundation for understanding and defending itself.
The figure of 104.5 billion euros tells us that philanthropy is important. But it does not tell us whether philanthropy is prepared—prepared for rising expectations, increasing scrutiny, and a political environment in which its role can no longer be taken for granted. Philanthropy in Europe has proven to be resilient. The comparisons we can make—imperfect, yet still insightful—point to stability, not expansion. However, the environment is changing. The question now is whether philanthropy can also become more self-assured, down-to-earth, and better equipped to defend its place in society. It’s not just about what it does. It’s also about what it can demonstrate. No longer just because you can’t properly manage what you can’t measure, but in a context where legitimacy is no longer a given and where, if you’re not sitting at the table, you’re probably on the menu.
The full publication is freely available and can be downloaded here.
The hearing in the French Senate can be viewed here.
