Reframing philanthropy for lasting impact

This article is authored by Vasvi Bharatram, founder chairperson, IMHA and joint vice chairperson, The Shri Ram Schools.

Philanthropy has always been an integral part of our values and way of life. Earlier generations of Indian philanthropists built institutions that became pillars of society such as schools, hospitals, universities and research centres that expanded opportunity, strengthened communities and created pathways for future generations. Those institutions remain some of India's greatest philanthropic legacies, and they continue to transform lives every day.

Philanthropy (Shutterstock)

But the world has changed. So, have the challenges we face.

The social issues defining our generation are not isolated problems waiting for a single solution. According to the World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report 2026, societal polarisation, climate-related risks, misinformation and demographic shifts are among the defining challenges shaping economies and societies over the coming decade. These interconnected challenges cut across sectors, communities and institutions, shaped by the way we live, learn, work and relate to one another. They do not sit neatly within the remit of any single organisation or sector. The truth is that no one institution, however capable, can solve them alone.

This demands a different model of philanthropy.

India's philanthropic landscape has evolved significantly over the past decade, with private giving now estimated at over ₹1.43 lakh crore annually. As philanthropy has grown in both scale and ambition, there is increasing recognition that lasting impact comes not from funding isolated projects, but from investing in systems that enable long-term change. The sector is steadily embracing greater collaboration and systems-oriented philanthropy, recognising that complex social challenges require sustained, collective action rather than fragmented interventions.

This shift requires us to rethink not only where we invest, but how we define success. For decades, philanthropy often measured impact through numbers: How many people did we reach? How many programmes did we fund? These remain important questions, but they are no longer sufficient. The more important question today is: What changed because we invested?

Did we strengthen a public system so it could serve people better long after our funding ended? Did we generate evidence that informed better policy? Did we bring organisations together that might otherwise have worked in silos? Did we fund innovation early enough for others to scale? Did we provide patient, flexible capital that allowed organisations to solve problems rather than constantly chase short-term deliverables?

Philanthropy's greatest contribution is often invisible. It lies in creating the conditions that allow others to succeed. Some of the most meaningful outcomes cannot be measured at the end of a grant cycle. They emerge years later through stronger institutions, better policies, deeper collaboration and more resilient communities because someone chose to invest in foundations rather than headlines.

My own journey has reinforced another lesson: expertise alone is no longer enough. Data, research and professional expertise remain indispensable. However, some of the most valuable insights come from people who have lived through the very challenges we are trying to solve. They understand barriers that statistics cannot fully capture. They know what it feels like to navigate fragmented systems, encounter stigma, search for support and experience where those systems succeed and where they fail.

When we see communities only as beneficiaries, we miss an extraordinary opportunity. The people closest to a problem are often closest to its solution. Around the world, philanthropy is increasingly embracing participatory and trust-based approaches that place lived experience at the centre of decision-making. Communities are helping to design, implement and evaluate solutions rather than simply receiving them. This shift requires humility. It asks funders to listen as much as they lead and to recognise that lasting change is built through partnership, not prescription.

The next decade calls for a different kind of philanthropy, one that is patient rather than impatient, collaborative rather than competitive, preventive rather than reactive, and willing to fund systems rather than simply programmes. It requires the confidence to invest in outcomes that may take years to become visible, recognising that meaningful social change rarely fits within a grant cycle.

This does not diminish the importance of institutions. On the contrary, strong institutions will always remain essential. But institutions alone cannot solve today's interconnected challenges. They must be supported by ecosystems that bring together government, civil society, academia, communities and philanthropy around shared goals. Philanthropy was never meant to replace government or civil society. Its unique role is to take risks where others cannot, catalyse innovation, strengthen institutions and create the conditions for lasting change.

Ultimately, the true measure of philanthropy is not the scale of its giving, but the permanence of the change it helps create. It is not defined by how much we give, but by what continues to thrive long after the funding ends. Lasting impact comes not from solving problems alone, but from building systems, partnerships and communities that are equipped to solve them for generations to come.

(The views expressed are personal)

This article is authored by Vasvi Bharatram, founder chairperson, IMHA and joint vice chairperson, The Shri Ram Schools.