Philanthropy has long rested on a deceptively simple idea: those with resources can use them to improve the lives of those without. At its best, individual, family, institutional and corporate giving has funded scientific breakthroughs, strengthened civil society, supported social movements and responded to humanitarian crises around the world. It has provided the risk capital for progress, supporting ideas and organisations long before governments or markets were prepared to invest.
Yet as the challenges facing societies have become more interconnected and complex, a more difficult question has come to the fore: can philanthropy address them effectively without reconsidering how power, participation and decision-making are shared?
In recent years, the phrase “solidarity, not charity” has become increasingly prominent in global development and social impact conversations. While the slogan may initially appear provocative, its underlying premise is straightforward. Charity often implies a relationship between giver and recipient, defined primarily by the transfer of resources from one party to another. Solidarity, by contrast, emphasises a shared commitment to addressing common challenges and reflects the understanding that poverty, inequality, climate vulnerability and social injustice are not isolated problems affecting other people, but interconnected issues that shape the societies in which we all live.
The distinction matters because it shifts attention from generosity alone to questions of power and participation. Rather than focusing solely on how resources can alleviate a problem, a solidarity-based approach asks why the problem exists, whose voices shape the response and what systems sustain it.
While this thinking has gained influence across international development, it raises important questions for philanthropy itself. Charity is not merely one of philanthropy’s activities: it is central to its identity. The sector exists because individuals and organisations choose to dedicate private resources to public benefit. Suggesting that philanthropy should move beyond charity can therefore sound, to some, like a challenge to the very principles upon which it was built.
Yet the debate is not about replacing charity with solidarity. Few would argue that generosity, compassion and giving are no longer necessary. Rather, it is about recognising that many of today’s challenges cannot be addressed through funding alone. Financial resources remain indispensable, but lasting change also depends on who participates in decision-making, whose knowledge is valued and whether those most affected by an issue have meaningful influence over the solutions being developed.
Historically, philanthropy has often operated through clear hierarchies of decision-making. Funders establish priorities, determine strategic direction, define outcomes and evaluate success. These responsibilities are frequently exercised thoughtfully and with genuine commitment to impact. Nevertheless, authority remains concentrated among those who control financial resources.
The language of solidarity challenges this dynamic. At its heart, solidarity is not about giving less, but about listening more. It starts from the belief that people closest to a challenge possess valuable knowledge about both its causes and its potential solutions. Lived experience is not simply something to be acknowledged after decisions have been made but is a form of expertise.
For philanthropy, this represents a significant shift: it requires organisations to consider not only who benefits from funding, but who helps shape the decisions behind it, recognising that proximity to resources does not necessarily equate to proximity to understanding. In practice, this means deeper collaboration, broader participation and more inclusive decision-making.
The more fundamental question is how leadership should be exercised in an increasingly interconnected world. Expertise, stewardship and strategic resource allocation remain essential, but contemporary challenges are exposing the limits of leadership models that rely primarily on authority or institutional influence.
The issues philanthropy seeks to address rarely fit within organisational boundaries: climate change, public health, migration, economic inequality and democratic resilience are systems challenges that require collective effort across sectors and geographies. Progress depends not only on what organisations know, but also on their ability to build partnerships, convene diverse perspectives and mobilise action among actors with different interests and priorities.
As a result, philanthropic organisations are placing greater value on leaders who can navigate ambiguity, build trust across institutional and cultural boundaries, and sustain collaboration among groups with differing perspectives. These capabilities enable leaders to adapt to changing conditions while maintaining momentum towards shared goals.
The defining leadership challenge for philanthropy is learning how to exercise influence without relying solely on authority. The most effective leaders combine strategic conviction with openness to diverse perspectives, recognising that lasting change is achieved through collaboration rather than any single institution acting alone. The strongest philanthropic leaders are not simply funders or strategists: they are convenors and coalition-builders who enable diverse actors to work towards shared goals.
Philanthropy’s future leaders will still need judgement, expertise and ambition. They will still be expected to deploy resources effectively, assess risk and deliver measurable impact. Yet their success will increasingly depend on something broader: the ability to build trust, connect stakeholders and mobilise collective action around complex social challenges. As philanthropy seeks to influence systems rather than individual interventions, its greatest value may lie not simply in the capital it provides, but in its capacity to connect people, institutions and ideas in pursuit of lasting change. In that context, solidarity is not an alternative to philanthropy but is a challenge to practise philanthropy differently.
Valentina Serra
Valentina is a search and leadership advisor with more than 12 years of experience delivering board, executive and senior leadership appointments across the UK and internationally. At Oxford HR, she leads executive search assignments within the global philanthropy sector, partnering with foundations, family philanthropies, donor institutions and social impact organisations on leadership appointments, succession planning and governance-related mandates.
Prior to joining Oxford HR, Valentina held roles with Perrett Laver, Minerva, GatenbySanderson and Green Park, where she advised boards and senior stakeholders on leadership appointments across global development, the UK voluntary sector, education and the wider public sector. Her experience spans a broad range of organisations, from international NGOs and foundations to educational institutions and public bodies, working with clients navigating leadership transitions, organisational growth and strategic change.
Valentina holds a BA in Political Science and an MA in Comparative Politics from the University of Milan, as well as a BSc in Government, Policy and Politics from Birkbeck, University of London.
Alongside her executive search work, Valentina is interested in the interplay between culture and leadership, particularly the ways in which different social, political and organisational contexts shape perceptions of authority, influence and effectiveness. She is a strong advocate of research-led search, viewing rigorous market intelligence and thoughtful candidate mapping as essential tools for identifying exceptional talent beyond established networks and conventional career trajectories.
