Philanthropy in Europe has proved to be resilient and stable. But it is not growing. It must now demonstrate whether it is capable of holding ground in a changing environment. At a time when it is increasingly being called into question, it has a greater need for a reliable data base to defend itself.
On paper, European philanthropy is doing just fine. Based on the recent publication by the European Research Network on Philanthropy based on total donations by households, corporations, foundations and charity lotteries in 23 countries, we find that at least €104,5 billion is given each year. A vast sum. Enough to confirm that philanthropy plays a meaningful role in European societies. But numbers rarely tell the whole story.
Because when we look more closely at what sits behind that figure, a more nuanced picture emerges. And this picture is one that matters far more in the current political environment. Compared to the findings from our study in 2017, we must conclude that Philanthropy in Europe is not clearly growing. However, expectations of it are. The real issue is not whether philanthropy is growing, but whether it can sustain rising expectations without a growing resource base.
Snapshots
It is tempting to compare the current figures – € 104,5 billion in 2022 – with earlier estimates – € 87,5 billion in 2013 – and conclude that philanthropy is expanding. But that conclusion does not hold. Even when we only take the numbers from the (18) countries that are included in both editions, and compare the € 102,4 billion (2022) with € 87,5 billion (2013). The two studies are not a time series. They are two snapshots, taken with different lenses. Differences in data availability, definitions, and measurement mean that what looks like change often reflects how we measure, not necessarily how people give.
If we take the most robust comparison, the overall level of giving across countries with data in both years, the picture is sobering. Nominally, philanthropy has increased by 17%, but after correcting for inflation, it is roughly flat (-1,7%). Perhaps more worrisome, as a share of GDP, it has declined. Part of the apparent growth is driven by improved measurement in some countries, not necessarily by more generous behaviour. This does not make comparison meaningless, but it does mean it must be handled with care.
So the key takeaway is not expansion. It is resilience. Philanthropy has held its ground through crisis, pandemic, and political change, but it has not fundamentally increased its share of societal resources. And that would be fine, if expectations had not changed.
Structural tension
Across Europe, governments are under pressure. Public resources are continuously stretched. Governments need to address crisis that emerge while others did not even end. On top of that, political priorities are shifting. In some areas, the state is stepping back — not always explicitly, but effectively. At the same time, expectations of philanthropy are rising. Philanthropy is increasingly expected to fill gaps, respond to crises, address systemic issues, and in some cases compensate for retreating public provision. This creates a structural tension. Because while expectations grow, the underlying resource base does not.
At the same time, philanthropy operates in a changing political climate. Across Europe, trust in institutions is under pressure. Public debate is becoming more polarised. And actors associated with wealth, international networks, or unelected influence are increasingly questioned. Philanthropy sits precisely at that intersection.
This scrutiny is no longer abstract. In France, the Senate has launched an inquiry into the mechanisms by which public policies are financed by private organisations, companies or foundations, and the risks in terms of influence, lack of financial transparency, and interference with the functioning of democracy. That framing is telling. It does not begin from contribution. It begins from potential risk.
At the same time, developments in countries such as Hungary illustrate another dimension. Philanthropy itself remains present. People give, often generously, especially in times of crisis. But the infrastructure around philanthropy can weaken. In the decade that was between the first and the second edition of Philanthropy in Europe, data collection eroded. Systematic understanding becomes harder to maintain.
These are – obviously – not identical developments. But together, they point in the same direction. Philanthropy operates in an environment that is becoming less predictable and less automatically supportive.
Difficult to measure
One of the most important findings of the study is not the €104.5 billion, even being a lower bound. It is that large parts of philanthropy remain difficult to measure. Regular household donations – accounting for 52 billion, almost half of the total size of philanthropy in Europe – is captured relatively well. The other expression of household donations – bequests (€ 8,4 billion) – is almost opposite, with very little representative data across Europe. Data on corporate (€ 21,5 billion) and foundation giving (€ 20,6 billion) is diverse – and hard to really capture what counts as the original source of a donation. And when we look at the uses of donations, things become even more complicated.
But even within the limited comparisons we can make, patterns differ sharply. Household giving appears broadly stable, but increasingly concentrated. Corporate giving seems to have declined in real terms, despite rising ESG language. Foundation giving is relatively stable, but difficult to separate from corporate and HNW flows and not always clear if the original source of donations are from the endowment. Bequests show strong growth in some countries, but often driven by a few cases.
In several instances, what appears to be a trend turns out to be a measurement artefact or the result of a single dominant country. What we see is shaped as much by data as by reality.
Focus on legitimacy
Traditionally, discussions about philanthropy have focused on performance: how to give better, how to measure impact, how to improve strategy. Those questions remain important. But we can question if they are still sufficient. Because the environment is shifting from a focus on effectiveness to a focus on legitimacy. Philanthropy exists because the state allows private wealth to be used for public purposes under favourable conditions. That arrangement depends on public consent. And once that consent becomes conditional, philanthropy shifts from being enabled to being contested. In a context where even established democracies openly question the influence and transparency of philanthropic actors, the burden of proof shifts. Philanthropy must be able to show, convincingly and consistently, what distinguishes it from other forms of power and influence.
Europe does not lack philanthropy. It lacks a shared, robust knowledge infrastructure that allows philanthropy to demonstrate its contribution, engage in policy debates, and respond to criticism with evidence rather than assertion. In many sectors, legitimacy is supported by professional standards, academic research, and institutionalised knowledge. In philanthropy, this layer remains thin and fragmented. And that is not just an academic issue. It is a structural weakness.
For years, the sector has discussed about the need for better data. That discussion is still valid, but it needs to be reframed. This is not about building perfect datasets. It is about building capacity. Capacity to understand what is happening, detect changes over time, and respond when the environment shifts. That capacity becomes particularly important when public data sources cannot be taken for granted, political priorities change, or the legitimacy of philanthropy itself is questioned. In that sense, investing in knowledge is not a luxury. It is a form of preparedness.
Strategic interventions
And it does not require grand, centralised solutions. It can start more simply, for example by improving existing data where it is already available. Bringing existing data together on a shared data platform. Focusing on specific parts of philanthropy rather than the whole at once. Or, considering lighter, standardised approaches that make national data comparable without overburdening local systems. These are not expensive interventions. But they are strategic ones. Because they create something philanthropy currently lacks: a more stable foundation for understanding and defending itself.
The €104.5 billion figure tells us that philanthropy matters. But it does not tell us whether philanthropy is prepared. Prepared for rising expectations, increasing scrutiny, and a political environment in which its role is no longer self-evident. Philanthropy in Europe has proven resilient. The comparisons we can make, imperfect but still instructive, suggest stability, not expansion. The environment, however, is changing. The question now is whether philanthropy can also become more self-aware, more grounded, and better equipped to defend its place in society.
Not only through what it does. But through what it is able to show. No longer only just because you cannot properly manage what cannot measure, but, in a context where legitimacy is no longer given, and if you are not at the table – you are likely on the menu.
The full publication is published open access and can be downloaded here.
Watch the inquiry by the French senate here.
