There is a significant gap between grantmakers that are executing on best practices and those that feel they are making as positive an impact as they could.
2
Companies who embrace trust-based practices have more confidence in their ability to be innovative, adaptable, transparent and accountable in their grantmaking.
3
Underinvestment in some types of communication leads to missed opportunities in engaging audiences and in enhancing and sustaining grantmaking budgets.
4
There is a significant opportunity in communicating impact more effectively to executives, employees, grantees and their communities.
Corporate social impact and foundation teams face growing pressure to demonstrate tangible value from their grantmaking. They’re expected not only to serve communities but to reinforce brand purpose, employee pride, customer preference and investor confidence. But as the landscape becomes more complex — with rising expectations around transparency, corporate alignment and global scale — many programs struggle to balance needs with efficacy.
To better understand how impact leaders are navigating these demands, Benevity analyzed data from 120 organizations across 17 industries, representing a mix of corporate social responsibility and foundation-led grantmaking programs. These organizations, spanning North America, Europe and Australia, completed the Benevity Impact Index, a proprietary self-assessment. In the assessment, they rated themselves on 34 grantmaking-related practices that correspond to four overarching themes:
Strategic alignment and execution
Stakeholder engagement and impact
Innovation and adaptability
Communication
On the surface, corporate grantmaking appears to be humming along. Organizations report that, on average, they’re executing 74% of the best practices associated with strong grantmaking. Yet only half of them — just 51% — believe they’re doing it well. This 23-point confidence gap is more than just a curious statistic; it hints at a deeper unease and pressure among grantmakers.
%
BUT…
%
This confidence gap seems less about effort and more about clarity: a lack of shared definitions and strategic prioritization, feedback loops and an inability to meet every need with the time, resources and decision-making authority that grantmaking teams are given. In short, these teams appear to be spread thin, leaving them able to initiate but often unable to optimize or capitalize on gains they have made.
This study highlights an opportunity for purpose-driven organizations to close the confidence gap in their grantmaking programs, so they can realize greater positive impact, without significant changes to their budget.
Strategic alignment and execution: a mirage of alignment
Nearly all organizations participating in the self-assessment reported having key supports in place. In fact, 99% said their executive teams value their corporate impact programs, 99% said they have the budget to sustain their programs and 86% said their budget is secure annually. But peel back the layers and the sense of security is more fragile. While executive teams value grantmaking programs, both in terms of buy-in and budgetary support, grantmaking teams report lower confidence in these items.
2/3
of organizations feel confident that they have enough budget to sustain their corporate impact program.
The data also reveals a disconnect between local and global execution. While 99% of organizations support local causes and emergencies — and 87% make place-based investments — only about three-quarters extend grantmaking globally. Of those that do, just 35% say they do it well.
Local vs. global corporate grantmaking
Benevity Grantmaking Chart
100806040200
This is not surprising considering the complexities that come with local nuances in legal and regulatory requirements, the need for cultural understanding and the cost of recruiting and maintaining local resources and expertise. But this also represents opportunity cost for organizations who have global footprints. Organizations looking to strengthen their global grantmaking can draw on several effective practices, such as activating local ambassadors or impact champions, establishing regional Employee Resource Group (ERG) chapters, or forming councils of external community experts who understand both the company’s cause areas and regional needs. Technology platforms that enable regionalized due diligence and cross-border payment capabilities with tax effectiveness can exponentially increase a company’s global grantmaking success.
Stakeholder engagement and impact: engagement without depth
Of all the statements in the Benevity Impact Index, those that fall under the heading Stakeholder Engagement and Impact have some of the lowest “do it well” self-assessments. There are a lot of organizations engaging broadly with many stakeholder groups, but most report that they are not generating the kind of success they expect.
Low effectiveness scores in stakeholder engagement
Benevity — Do it vs Do it well (Matched Style)
100806040200
Organizations are trying to engage multiple stakeholders, especially employees. Nominated grants and ERG-directed giving are increasingly common, but only modestly effective. In most cases, the mechanisms exist, but the strategic follow-through — measuring satisfaction, aligning with business goals, celebrating impact — is not yet in place to maximize these investments.
Innovation and adaptability: the trust-based imperative
The Benevity Impact Index data reveals that grantmakers are practicing many of the tenets of trust-based philanthropy, an increasingly popular movement in recent years. The majority of them are offering unrestricted grants (61%), streamlining applications (65%) and minimizing reporting burdens (62%). While fewer express deep confidence in these practices — 56%, 53% and 51% respectively — it’s worth noting that these scores perform better than the average “do it well” score of 51% for all practices in this study.
Trust-based practices in corporate grantmaking
Benevity Grouped Chart
100806040200
Grantmakers report higher levels of confidence when trust-based practices are included.
This stands to reason given these types of relationships are based on staying close to one another and being as transparent as possible, helping grantors gain more real insight into their grantees’ needs, challenges and successes than would be had otherwise.
The Trust-Based Philanthropy Project, the largest promoter of the trust-based movement, speaks to changing the narrative on conventional philanthropy by “positioning funders as collaborators working alongside nonprofits to meet the needs and dreams of communities who are most removed from conventional power structures.”
Equity, in particular, remains an opportunity with 68% agreeing that they have made moves to be more equitable, but only 48% feel they are where they want to be in that regard. Many aspire to embed it in their approach, but allocating sufficient focus or resources to do it well is still a challenge.
Ultimately, trust is not a checklist. It must be mutually felt — both by the grantor and the grantee — and it’s fostered when there is consistency, follow-through and open communication over time. And it also goes well beyond funding — it can include everything from supporting grantees with skills, products and access to networks to help reinforce their reputation and sustain their work.
The Vanguard Group Foundation and Free Library of Philadelphia Foundation are exemplars in this area. This discussion between the two organizations illuminates how the principles of trust can be built into long-term, relationship-based partnerships that create sustained impact in communities.
The next frontier
Some organizations allow their funding to go to any worthy cause, not just registered charities and nonprofits. Examples include supporting Indigenous nations or seed-stage social enterprises, but these efforts are currently not widespread, though they have high potential for impact. That’s a strong signal for where the next wave of innovation could emerge.
Check out these examples below.
T Telus Pollinator Fund for Good
TELUS’ commitment to social capitalism by investing across all stages in for-profit companies that have the potential to change the world for the better.
Kroger's innovative approach focuses on helping local food security initiatives and sustainable agriculture programs that benefit underserved communities.
SAP's global initiative empowers social entrepreneurs and supports technology-driven solutions that address critical social and environmental challenges worldwide.
While executive support for grantmaking programs is strong, with 90% of organizations reporting internal support and 78% communicating program engagement with investors, communication around impact still falls short. Most organizations include their efforts in ESG reporting and public-facing communications, often highlighting inputs such as dollars granted or hours volunteered. But when it comes to sharing long-term impact, especially with employees, fewer than two-thirds do so, and only 57% of organizations feel their program is genuinely valued by employees.
%
BUT…
%
Communication needs to extend beyond branding. The scores in this section reflect a deeper opportunity: the translation of activity into meaning. Sharing the tangible outcomes and long-term impact and highlighting the cultivation of relationships beyond financial transactions, helps create shared understanding and allows everyone from business unit leaders, middle management, individual employees, nonprofits and even customers and investors to see how their efforts contribute to real change. Many organizations may be achieving more than they are recognized for, simply because the story isn’t being told in a way that connects the dots between intention, action and impact.
Compelling narratives can help close the confidence gap. Asking pertinent questions and diligently tracking key metrics within the granting process are essential for extracting valuable insights that inform impactful storytelling for grantmakers and their nonprofit partners. By increasing investment in storytelling, measurement and internal championing of grant success, organizations can:
Strengthen the business case for sustained community investment.
Deepen employee awareness, connection and engagement.
Elevate corporate reputation without expanding program budgets.
Increase confidence within the grantmaking team that their efforts are in line with best practices and are making a positive impact.
The real barrier
There is significant structural complexity in this space: regulatory compliance, legal and tax considerations, reputational risk and myriad stakeholder expectations that often diverge. These needs quickly compound to consume resources and increase costs while not always delivering more direct value or impact. We know, from conversations with grantmakers, that many organizations are spreading themselves thin — launching, maintaining and reporting on a multitude of initiatives.
The real barrier — and real opportunity — is making difficult choices.
Making difficult choices gives organizations the opportunity to choose where to focus and where not to. This can be operationally difficult, politically risky and even have brand implications. In some cases, these programs have internal and external legacies, making it difficult to shed long-standing initiatives that may not be performing well or are no longer strategically aligned.
The strategy of support for all has a hidden cost: it runs the risk of dilution and cost which hinders impact. The choice that many leaders are making now is anchored in depth over breadth, sustainable impact over broad engagement and being deliberate in every aspect. Focused commitments in grantmaking can help narrow the confidence gap by building a long-lasting, strategically aligned commitment to the initiatives that mean the most to organizations.
Stewardship as a principle and strategy
If corporate grantmaking is going to close the confidence gap — not only do it, but do it well — organizations are going to need to embrace what it means to focus. Focus is not just about narrowing for efficiency; it is about building trust, alignment and long-term value across stakeholders, especially nonprofit partners. Focus is not restrictive. It is a commitment to stewardship and a strategic commitment to showing up more clearly, more consistently and with greater impact.
Stewardship means creating the conditions for programs and partnerships to grow over time. That includes internal clarity, but also a deep respect for nonprofit capacity. When companies spread efforts too thin or shift priorities too frequently, nonprofits are the ones who feel it most in the form of instability, rework and unclear expectations. Focus is a way to protect both intention and execution.
Strategically, this could look like:
Strategic alignment and execution
Exposing executives and key business leaders directly to the needs of the community and the nonprofits supporting the work. This can build a visceral and emotional understanding of the impact that a company or foundation can generate and can help to drive longer-term investments in the right areas with the right partners.
Internal frameworks that assess programs based on strategic fit, capacity and outcome potential. Standardized measures, outcome mapping and resource allocation tools can help to identify where there is strategic fit and guide depth of investment. Some grants management systems are evolving to build in AI-powered scoring models based on organizational criteria.
Balancing strategic impact with engagement. Where there’s internal pressure or opportunity to support a broader range of topics, ERG or employee-led grantmaking can complement a strategic core without fragmenting the overall program.
Elevating the nonprofit experience and voice into definitions of success. Embedding nonprofit feedback into strategic planning and grantmaking experiences ensures programs stay fair, relevant, mutually beneficial and uncover areas for improvement.
Innovation and adaptability
Committing to a set of trust-based principles. Design grant portfolios to reflect both organizational values and community needs by combining flagship, multi-year investments with reduced reporting requirements and collaborative relationships with grantees.
Communication
Data-driven storytelling with deep stories of impact and progress from nonprofits. Their beneficiaries can make impact more visible, not just measurable; when done well, this work highlights where partnerships and impact can go deeper over the long run.
When grantmaking organizations lead with this kind of focus, nonprofits are better equipped to plan, scale and deliver on the impact that is being sought in the first place. Internally, it becomes easier to align across teams, maintain priorities and demonstrate value that extends well beyond the grant itself. In this way, stewardship is not just a principle, it is the strategy.
Diving into the Benevity Impact Index data
Throughout this report, we’ve referenced the Benevity Impact Index (BII) and the responses we received from 120 organizations that self-assessed their grantmaking programs. While the themes and insights throughout this report are pulled from that data, it’s illustrative to look at the data itself.
An illuminating tool in this research is a quadrant-based “Zone Map” that categorizes practices by two measures: how many organizations implement them (shown on the X axis) and how many say they do them well (shown on the Y axis). While the chart may look daunting at first, it allows for an efficient classification of many items in constellations that can focus attention quickly. The Zone Map reveals if the effort that is being expended is being rewarded with strong performance.
Corporate Investment Matrix
Dot number → practice
Zone 1 — common + done well
Showing points where X ≥ 74% and Y ≥ 51% (with slight overflow).
Zone 1
Eleven out of our 34 statements land here, practices that are both common and well-executed. Predictably, this is the sweet spot. Volunteering — a long-time pillar of corporate citizenship — for example, lands in zone 1. Though not perfect, 65% of organizations say they do it well, making it one of the more consistently effective components in their community investment strategy.
Zone 2 — common + low success
Showing points where X ≥ 74% and Y < 51% (with slight overflow).
Zone 2
Under common practices with low success, we see 10 of our 34 practices — just under 30%. This zone is particularly costly — it consumes energy, time and resources, but rarely delivers to expectations. Consider practices like in-kind donations (offered by 80% of organizations but only 34% do it well) or strategic sponsorships (commonly pursued at 83%, but just 29% report doing it well).
Zone 3 — low investment
Showing points where X < 74% and Y < 51% (with slight overflow).
Zone 3
Another ten practices, under 29%, fall into zone 3, where there is low investment. This means that few organizations are undertaking these practices and perception of their effectiveness is also low. Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of the practices that fall into this zone are related to the themes of stakeholder engagement and innovation, where there may simply be less organizations able to execute on broad engagement and push the boundaries of what is traditionally done. By exposing these practices, new opportunities for organizations that wish to drive greater impact or reputation may find inspiration.
Zone 4 — low investment + high potential
Showing points where X < 74% and Y ≥ 51% (with slight overflow).
Zone 4
Though zone 4 has very few practices in it — just three out of 34 — it highlights some of the biggest opportunities for organizations to consider that may drive outsized impact on key stakeholders, most notably grantees.
Looking forward
The organizations in this study are not short on effort or commitment when it comes to grantmaking. What many are lacking is the space and the permission to make hard choices on where to focus. As expectations grow and portfolios expand, the real challenge is not effort, but intentionality. The path forward is not about doing more. It is about choosing where to go deeper, where to step back and where to reinvest with purpose.
To move forward, grantmakers need clarity on what "doing it well" actually looks like. That definition will vary by organization, but it should be guided by organizational strategy and priorities, the pursuit of meaningful outcomes, informed by nonprofit feedback, executed with stakeholder engagement and sealed with a commitment to depth over volume. Confidence grows when impact teams can draw a straight line between priorities, investment decisions and measurable results both for the organization and for the communities served.
The next chapter of corporate grantmaking will not be defined by breadth. It will be shaped by consistency, accountability and strategic stewardship. Many of the shifts required are not budgetary. They are behavioral. Focus is not a retreat. It is a way to build trust, amplify what is working and create the conditions for meaningful, sustained impact. That is what real stewardship looks like.
Data and methodology
Data
The Benevity Impact Index (BII) is a structured self-assessment where organizations can evaluate
their impact maturity from the perspective of internal structures, strategies and tactics.
This analysis draws on self-reported data from 120 organizations that completed the Benevity Impact Index (BII)
between January 2024 and May 2025. Respondents represent a mix of corporate and foundation-led grantmaking
programs spanning 17 industries and operating across North America, Europe and Australia.
Methodology
This specific grantmaking analysis utilizes a subset of the Benevity Impact Index data and is designed to evaluate perceived effectiveness across 34 distinct practices that are (or should be reasonably expected to be) common to all organizations involved in grantmaking. In the analysis, these specific grantmaking practices have been thematically grouped into four dimensions: strategic alignment, stakeholder engagement, innovation & adaptability and communication.
In the assessment tool, each practice was rated on a scale that indicated where the practice is in place, and simultaneously captures the level of execution being achieved from the participant’s perspective. Ratings were captured on a Likert-style scale to reflect the actual implementation of the practice and then two gradations to indicate the degree of effectiveness or confidence that existed around that practice. This dual-lens approach enabled Benevity to analyze both prevalence and perceived effectiveness, and to visualize the relationship between the two using a quadrant-based framework (the “Zone Map”), which highlights areas of strength, overextension and untapped potential.
The zone map in this analysis is used as a heuristic. It is not intended to suggest causality, but rather to help visualize where current grantmaking practices sit relative to performance and prevalence, making it easier to see where they are off balance and in need of mitigation or at least further consideration.
Interpretation of the findings was done through careful consideration of the phrasing of the statements in the BII combined with Benevity’s industry perspective and extensive interaction with grantmaking professionals across a diverse client base. The BII assessment does not specifically capture qualitative information about the varied and complex reasons that may impact adoption and accomplishment levels on the elements.
Take the Benevity Impact Index to assess your corporate impact program.
