Philanthropy and the Sustainable Development Goals: the comparative advantage of ‘moonshot philanthropy’ for tackling the key challenges facing humanity

• In Event: Game-changing philanthropy

Abstract

The costs of financing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was running short by $2.5 trillion per annum before the COVID-19 pandemic. In just one year, 2020, the SDG financing gap increased by 56% to $3.9 trillion (OECD 2022). Ongoing polycrises including war in Ukraine, renewed conflict in the Middle East and climate-related disasters are creating a “scissor effect” of increased demand and decreased resources to meet those needs (OECD 2020, p.2). Whilst philanthropy has always been an integral factor in achieving the SDGs, as overtly recognised in SDG goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals, the role of private resources is becoming more crucial as the funding gap grows and the 2030 deadline draws nearer.

This paper explores the urgent question of how best to use philanthropic resources to tackle the key challenges facing humanity as encapsulated in the SDGs. There are many approaches to undertaking philanthropy ranging from one-off cash transfers to complex, long-term strategic giving strategies, and the goals of philanthropy similarly range from the aim of ameliorating immediate needs to the complex aim of achieving systemic change (see, for example, Payton and Moody 2008; Jung et al 2016). Philanthropists are also known to have different risk appetites, with some - such as effective altruists - seeking more certain outcomes (MacAskill 2015; Singer 2015) with others being more willing to adopt riskier strategies in pursuit of systemic change (see for example Stanford PACS 2021).

This paper presents a theoretically-informed and empirically-based exploration of whether the approach of ‘moonshot philanthropy’ (Breeze and Chen 2022) has any distinct advantages in this regard. Whilst as yet less commonly used than synonyms (see below), ‘moonshots’ feature in the COP28 agenda, and the phrase ‘moonshot philanthropy’ has begun to appear in commentary and media coverage, referring to an approach that involves “funding high-risk, out-of-the-box ideas to identify scalable solutions for today’s societal and climate challenges” (Ang and Tan 2022).


We situate the concept of ‘moonshot philanthropy’ in relation to longstanding scholarly work on the role, purpose and impact of philanthropy, as well as its inherent weaknesses (Salamon 1987) and comparative advantages (Billis and Glennerster 1998). We will present a series of case studies, gathered through secondary and primary data collection including semi-structured interviews with philanthropists and leaders of philanthropically-funded organisations pursuing moonshot goals related to the SDGs. These case studies enable us to highlight convergence and divergence with similar concepts such as Big Bets philanthropy (SSIR 2019; Shah 2023), Bolder philanthropy (Lannen and Ziswiler 2015), and Audacious philanthropy (Ditkoff and Grindle 2017). We argue that ‘moonshot philanthropy’ has additional explanatory value in relation to at least four dimensions of philanthropic activity: amount of funding, risk appetite, domain expertise and collaborations with non-philanthropic partners. Further, we argue that this approach shows awareness of, and response to, common critiques regarding the role of private giving in democratic societies (as explored in Breeze 2021).

Our conclusions advance thinking on the role of philanthropy, and on how philanthropic capital can be harnessed to achieve the SDGs.

References

Billis, D. and Glennerster, H. (1998) Human Services and the Voluntary Sector: towards a theory of comparative advantage. Journal of Social Policy 27(1): 79-98.

Breeze, B. (2021) In Defence of Philanthropy. New York: University of Columbia Press.

Breeze, B. and Chen, J. (2022) Moonshot philanthropy: Achieving responsive social change by privatising failure and socialising success. Cambridge, UK: Centre for Strategic Philanthropy, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.

Ditkoff, S. W. and Grindle, A. (2017) Audacious Philanthropy. Harvard Business Review Sept-Oct 2017. https://hbr.org/2017/09/audacious-philanthropy%20argued

Foster, W., Perreault, G., Powell, A. and Addy, C. (2016) Making Big Bets for Social Change. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2016.

Jung, T., Phillips S., and Harrow, J. (Eds.) The Routledge Companion to Philanthropy, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Lannen, P. and Ziswiler, M. (2015) Toward a Bolder Philanthropy? Stanford Social Innovation Review, 23 June 2015. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/toward_a_bolder_philanthropy

MacAskill, W. (2015) Doing Good Better: A radical new way to make a difference. London: Guardian Books.

OECD (2022) Global Outlook on Financing for Sustainable Development 2023: No Sustainability Without Equity. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/fcbe6ce9-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/fcbe6ce9-en [Accessed 21/10/23]

OECD (2020) Closing the SDG Financing Gap in the COVID-19 era. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/dev/OECD-UNDP-Scoping-Note-Closing-SDG-Financing-Gap-COVID-19-era.pdf [Accessed 21/10/23]

Payton, R. and Moody, M. (2008) Understanding Philanthropy: It’s meaning and mission, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Salamon, L. (1987) Of Market Failure, Voluntary Failure, and Third-Party Government: Toward a Theory of Government-Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State. NVSQ 16(1): 29-49.

Shah, R. (2023) Big Bets: How Large-Scale Change Really Happens. New York: Simon Element

Singer, P. (2015) The Most Good You Can Do: How effective altruism is changing ideas about living ethically. Yale, CT: Yale University Press.

Stanford PACS (2021) The Stanford PACS Guide to Effective Giving. Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society.

Authors

• Beth Breeze, Centre for Philanthropy, University of Kent

• Steph Haydon, Centre for Philanthropy, University of Kent

• Weinan Wang, Centre for Philanthropy, University of Kent

• Karl Wilding, Centre for Philanthropy, University of Kent