Building on AGAPE Europe 2026: Exploring ERNOP Interest Groups
Key themes from the discussions in Venice and an invitation to help shape continued exchange among ERNOP members.
At AGAPE Europe 2026, researchers and practitioners explored what we know about different aspects of philanthropy, the debates shaping the field, and questions requiring further attention. This summary brings together six thematic discussions as a starting point for further exchange within ERNOP. It reflects the issues raised by participants rather than a comprehensive review of the evidence or an agreed research agenda.
Individual giving
The discussion explored the relationship between individuals, their wider social context and the act of giving. Participants considered how values, motivations, personality and generation interact with factors such as government provision, wealth inequality, cultural attitudes towards money and responsibility for others.
Attention also turned to fundraising and how donors understand and evaluate charitable organisations. Topics included recognition, perceived impact, alignment with personal values, overhead costs and beneficiary voice. The group mapped different forms of giving, including regular and occasional donations, restricted and unrestricted support, local and global giving, and online channels such as crowdfunding.
Priorities for further inquiry included understanding how giving changes over time, making better use of practitioners’ experience, and addressing limitations in access to data and the generalisability of findings. A central question was how to move beyond snapshots of donors in particular organisations or countries towards understanding changing patterns of giving.
Institutional philanthropy and foundations
Participants examined foundations’ relationships with states and civil society in a context of shrinking civic space. They discussed trust-based philanthropy, participatory grantmaking and longer-term approaches, including the values expressed through these practices.
Power was a central theme: power exercised over foundations, power exercised by foundations over other organisations, and power relations between foundations. Participants also stressed the importance of distinguishing large philanthropic institutions from grassroots and movement funding.
The discussion sought to move beyond strongly positive or critical accounts of philanthropy towards questions that can be examined systematically. These included legitimacy, accountability, transparency, governance and supervision. Comparative research, action research and theoretical work were identified as valuable approaches. Participants emphasised that the availability of data is only a starting point: how data are interpreted and turned into knowledge also requires careful attention.
Management and governance
The group explored how philanthropic organisations make strategic choices and pursue impact. Participants questioned how impact at organisational level relates to individual project outcomes, and whether these can meaningfully be combined. Aggregated measures, including monetary approaches, were discussed alongside their limitations in capturing different dimensions of impact.
Attention also turned to choices between project funding and general organisational support, and between responding to applications and proactively identifying partners. One suggestion was to place greater emphasis on clarifying what an organisation seeks to achieve, why the issue requires attention, and what evidence supports the proposed approach.
Participants distinguished demonstrating impact to external stakeholders from using assessment to learn and improve. Both purposes face challenges when impact emerges beyond a project’s timeframe. The discussion also considered how foundations can adapt their goals, whether perpetuity is always appropriate, and when alternatives such as sunset arrangements or donor-advised funds might better suit the mission, urgency and available resources.
Corporate philanthropy
The group identified a need to understand corporate philanthropy’s contribution to society more fully. A literature review presented during the session suggested that research often focuses on benefits to companies, such as reputation, while business and nonprofit research remain insufficiently connected.
Participants discussed relationships between corporate foundations and their associated companies, including questions of influence, independence and transparency. Better access to data and stronger relationships between researchers and practitioners were seen as important for understanding how corporate philanthropy operates beyond the amounts donated.
Further questions concerned differences between multinational companies and smaller businesses, grantmaking practices, staff and board professionalisation, and contributions beyond money, including volunteering and organisational support. Participants also explored tensions between business interests and societal benefit, and whether reporting and sustainability requirements might affect voluntary philanthropic activity. These were areas for further investigation rather than settled conclusions.
Volunteering and civic engagement
The discussion highlighted the diversity of volunteering across Europe and the difficulty of identifying a single European perspective. Participants noted differences in how volunteering is understood and valued, including its relationship to financial giving and civic engagement.
The group questioned the assumption that volunteering necessarily expresses positive values or produces positive outcomes. Discussion of volunteering for non-democratic organisations, voluntourism and expectations placed on young people raised questions about whose interests volunteering serves and under what conditions.
Other topics included volunteering by migrants and its possible role in integration, generational change, volunteer management and the effects of shrinking civic space. The literature shared during the session addressed motivations, inequality, social capital, changing styles of volunteering and political dimensions. These discussions pointed to the importance of examining participation in its social and institutional context.
Philanthropy, society and policy
Participants explored how philanthropy is understood, perceived and regulated across different national contexts. In some settings, philanthropy was associated primarily with wealthy individuals, raising questions about how it relates to ordinary people’s giving.
The group examined philanthropy’s political role, including its potential contribution to polarisation and its influence through activities such as funding think tanks. Discussion distinguished policies directly affecting philanthropy, such as tax incentives, from those with indirect effects. Participants also considered how legal definitions of public benefit relate to broader moral and social understandings.
A recurring question was whose agenda philanthropy advances. Concerns about donor influence, accountability and distance from everyday needs were accompanied by a call to examine the evidence behind such perceptions. Hybrid models, including enterprise foundations, prompted further questions about the boundaries between philanthropy and business.
A starting point for continued exchange
Across the discussions, recurring concerns included power and legitimacy, differences between national contexts, access to and interpretation of data, and the relationship between research and practice. Participants also highlighted the need to understand change over time and to examine how organisational choices shape philanthropy’s societal contribution.
References contributed during and after several sessions offer a starting point for shared reading lists, rather than a comprehensive or agreed body of literature.
Building on these discussions, ERNOP is exploring interest among its members in developing thematic interest groups. The proposed groups would help researchers and practitioners build a shared understanding of what we know, what is changing, and where further work is needed. They would provide continuity beyond individual events, make relevant knowledge easier to find, and create opportunities for collaboration.
Depending on members’ interests and capacity, groups could develop shared references, produce an annual overview of developments, organise conference panels, or pursue other activities. These possibilities would be explored with interested members as a next step.
All ERNOP members, whether or not you attended AGAPE Europe, are invited to indicate which themes interest you and whether you would like to join an initial conversation. You can also let us know if you might be willing to help get a group started.