Reflections on the Keynote of Liv Engholm, ERNOP 2025 Heidelberg
The opening keynote at ERNOP 2025 conference in Heidelberg set a reflective and critical tone. Liv Engholm, professor at Copenhagen Business School, did not deliver a self-congratulatory address on the successes of philanthropy. Instead, she offered a probing analysis of its position in society — as stabilizer, as translator, and as a field where the very meaning of the common good is negotiated.
Beyond timeless ideals
Engholm’s central observation was deceptively simple: “It’s about solidarity and responsibility.” Yet, she reminded us, these values are never universal or timeless. The common good is not a fixed, eternal principle. Rather, it is historically constituted. Each society, in each period, redefines what is considered “good” — and who belongs to it.
This insight is deeply consequential. If what we call the common good is always contested, then philanthropy is not operating on neutral ground. It is not simply applying eternal values to practice. Instead, it actively participates in shaping those very values. Who deserves support? Once, this was defined in religious categories: widows, orphans, the “deserving poor.” Today, we see it in legal categories (recipients of social welfare) or in programmatic ones (children, migrants, disaster victims). Each definition draws boundaries, and philanthropy helps draw them.
The gift as power
One of Engholm’s more provocative reminders was that “gifts are never free.” Every gift carries obligations. To give is to set rules — and to receive is to accept them. The first gift sets the conditions for exchange.
This logic places philanthropy squarely within power dynamics. When foundations decide who is funded and under what conditions, they shape not only organizations but also categories of deservingness. They stabilize roles and define what counts as legitimate and illegitimate. Philanthropy is thus never innocent: it is an exercise of social power, even when motivated by solidarity.
Philanthropy as translator
Engholm’s conceptual contribution was to describe philanthropy as a translator between the spheres of state, market, and civil society. It is not identical with any of them, but touches all three. Foundations translate the language of private wealth into public purpose, the idioms of markets into claims of solidarity, and state priorities into civic action.
This role is powerful but also risky. Translation is never neutral. Each act of reframing involves inclusion and exclusion, winners and losers. Philanthropy not only interprets the common good but also reshapes it.
Historically, foundations played a quiet role. They operated as corrective instances, nudging state practices silently, largely invisible to the broader public. But since the early 2000s, Engholm observed, many foundations have become visible actors. They publish strategies, run media campaigns, and openly partner with corporations. Their visibility has made them less a quiet corrective, more explicit players in political discourse.
Risks and backdrafts
This visibility comes with risks. Philanthropy can bypass democratic debate, replacing public deliberation with private decision-making. It can import market logics into spheres where solidarity should dominate. And it can exclude voices that do not fit the categories foundations define.
Engholm warned: the power of philanthropy lies precisely in its ability to cross boundaries. That power can be generative, but also destructive. If philanthropy sets itself up as the arbiter of the common good, it risks eroding democratic legitimacy.
Lessons from history
The keynote drew on historical lessons. Many state welfare systems were first piloted by philanthropic initiatives. What foundations chose to fund often became the template for state policy. At the same time, exclusions stabilized into law: in Nordic countries, for example, alcoholics were excluded from welfare for decades — a philanthropic judgment that became state policy.
The message was sobering: philanthropy has always shaped the boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. It has never been a neutral bystander. Today’s debates about climate, migration, and inequality are no different. Philanthropic actors are defining what counts as urgent, what counts as legitimate, and who counts as worthy.
Obligations for the future
Given this, Engholm outlined obligations for philanthropy. Foundations must:
- Deliver transparency — opening their decision-making to scrutiny. Share authorship of the common good with state and citizens, not claim monopoly.
- Reciprocate society’s gifts — including tax privileges and legal protections — by giving back in ways that strengthen democratic deliberation.
- Expand inclusion, not narrow it, by recognizing diverse voices and resisting exclusionary categories.
The risks, she admitted, are obvious: philanthropy can become undemocratic, overly technocratic, or captive to market logics. But the challenge is to turn its power of translation into a contribution to pluralistic democracy.
Conclusion: Philanthropy in alliance
Engholm closed with a call for alliances: “The future of philanthropy will be written in alliance with states, markets, and citizens.” This vision positions philanthropy not as a sideline player but as a central actor in negotiating societal values. But it also binds it to an ethic of responsibility.
Diss-Tance 