Oceania[edit]
Australia[edit]
Structured giving in Australia through foundations[48] is slowly growing, although public data on the philanthropic sector is sparse.[49] There is no public
registry of philanthropic foundations as distinct from charities more generally.
Two foundation types for which some data is available[50][51] are Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs)[52] and Public Ancillary Funds (PubAFs).[53] Private Ancillary
Funds have some similarities to private family foundations in the US and Europe, and do not have a public fundraising requirement.[54] Public Ancillary
Funds include community foundations, some corporate foundations, and foundations that solely support single organisations such as hospitals,
schools, museums, and art galleries.[55] They must raise funds from the general public.[56]
Differences between traditional and new philanthropy[edit]
Impact investment versus traditional philanthropy[edit]
Traditional philanthropy and impact investment can be distinguished by how they serve society. Traditional philanthropy is usually short-term, where
organizations obtain resources for causes through fund-raising and one-off donations.[57] The Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation are
examples of such; they focus more on financial contributions to social causes and less on actions and processes of benevolence. Impact investment,
on the other hand, focuses on the interaction between individual wellbeing and broader society by promoting sustainability. Stressing the importance of
impact and change, they invest in different sectors of society, including housing, infrastructure, healthcare and energy.[58]
A suggested explanation for the preference for impact investment philanthropy to traditional philanthropy is the gaining prominence of the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) since 2015. Almost every SDG is linked to environmental protection and sustainability because of rising concerns about
how globalisation, consumerism, and population growth may affect the environment. As a result, development agencies have seen increased demands
for accountability as they face greater pressure to fit with current developmental agendas.
Traditional philanthropy versus philanthrocapitalism[edit]
Philanthrocapitalism differs from traditional philanthropy in how it operates. Traditional philanthropy is about charity, mercy, and selfless devotion
improving recipients' wellbeing.[58] Philanthrocapitalism, is philanthropy transformed by business and the market,[59] where profit-oriented business
models are designed that work for the good of humanity.[60] Share value companies are an example. They help develop and deliver curricula in
education, strengthen their own businesses and improve the job prospects of people.[61] Firms improve social outcomes, but while they do so, they also
benefit themselves.
The rise of philanthrocapitalism can be attributed to global capitalism. There is an understanding [weasel words] that philanthropy is not worthwhile if no economic
benefit can be derived by philanthropy organisations, both from a social and private perspective. Therefore, philanthropy has been seen as a tool to
sustain economic and firm growth, based on human capital theory. Through education, specific skills are taught that enhance people's capacity to learn
and their productivity at work.
Intel invests in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricular standards in the US and provides learning resources and
materials for schools, for its innovation and revenue.[62] The New Employment Opportunities initiative in Latin America is a regional collaboration to train
one million youth by 2022 to raise employment standards and ultimately provide a talented pool of labour for companies.
Promoting equity through science and health philanthropy [edit]
Philanthropy has the potential to foster equity and inclusivity in various fields, such as scientific research, development, and healthcare. Addressing
systemic inequalities in these sectors can lead to more diverse perspectives, innovations, and better overall outcomes.
Scholars have examined the importance of philanthropic support in promoting equity in different areas. For example, Christopherson et al.[63] highlight
the need to prioritize underrepresented groups, promote equitable partnerships, and advocate for diverse leadership within the scientific community. In
the healthcare sector, Thompson et al.[64] emphasize the role of philanthropy in empowering communities to reduce health disparities and address the
root causes of these disparities. Research by Chandra et al.[65] demonstrates the potential of strategic philanthropy to tackle health inequalities through
initiatives that focus on prevention, early intervention, and building community capacity. Similarly, a report by the Bridgespan Group[66] suggests that
philanthropy can create systemic change by investing in long-term solutions that address the underlying causes of social issues, including those related
to science and health disparities.
To advance equity in science and healthcare, philanthropists can adopt several key strategies:
Prioritize underrepresented groups: Support scientists and health professionals from diverse backgrounds to help address historical injustices
and foster diversity.
Encourage equitable partnerships: Facilitate collaborations between institutions from different backgrounds to promote knowledge exchange and
a fair distribution of resources.
Advocate for diverse leadership: Support initiatives that emphasize diversity and inclusion in leadership positions within scientific and health
institutions.
Invest in early-career professionals: Help create a more equitable pipeline for future leaders in science and healthcare by investing in early-
career researchers and health professionals.
Influence policy changes: Utilize philanthropic influence to advocate for policy changes that address systemic inequalities in science and health.
Through these approaches, philanthropy can signific
