
Rethink philanthropy for sustainable development
A neighbour was laid off work at a non-governmental organisation while the nephew's studies were cut short. The two are victims of a donor philanthropic organisation that unprecedentedly stopped sending donations to Africa.
Amid international foreign aid cuts by the Trump administration, a can of worms has been opened about humanitarianism and social sector financing, sparking fresh discussions around the world.
Not-for-profit organisations known for supporting social development while empowering and employing millions of people are losing funding, threatening our progress to sustainable development.
Philanthropy contributes $2.3 trillion — or 3% — of the world's GDP. Africa received $3.8 billion from international donations from 2019 to 2021.
But, according to Gallup data, the value of philanthropy declined from 2024 to date by 2.1%, signifying philanthropic burn-out, thus affecting numerous humanitarian activities and the not-for-profit sector.
After World War I rich men, moved by conviction, convenience and coercion to donate for a common good, defined the evolution of philanthropy.
In the 1900s, families and the wealthiest people set up charity trusts for the less privileged parts of Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, North America and Latin America.
Philanthropy for decades has supported the Church, civil society organisations, international development agencies and grassroots community groups, helping the world's social sector movements to blossom.
Jamsetji Tata, the founder of the Tata Group, set the precedent; he was the world's biggest philanthropist of the 20th century, donating more than $100 billion mainly for healthcare and education. .
Philanthropy has been the cornerstone of humanitarianism and social development in many African nations.
Each time parts of Africa are hit by natural disasters, civil wars and global shocks, many governments are not in position to meet the magnitude of calamities and need aid.
A backslide in philanthropic contributions means the social sector cannot longer depend on these contributions.
According to Forbes, billionaires Elon Musk ($369.7 billion) and Jeff Bezos ($116 billion) declined to sign the Giving Pledge card, a promise by the world's wealthiest to dedicate the majority of their wealth to charitable causes. Bernad Arnault ($130 billion), Gautan Adani ($130 billion), Larry Page ($88.7 billion) and Mukesh Ambani ($88.2 billion) are not known to have participated in philanthropic activities.
Surely these and other billionaires could make significant contributions towards humanitarianism and social development.
Our hopes now hinge on venture philanthropy, which, according to Sopact, is 'a form of philanthropy that applies the principles of venture capital to charitable giving. It involves providing financial and non-financial support to nonprofit organisations to create long-term, sustainable change.'
According to Forbes, there are 3,028 billionaires worldwide who, combined, have a net worth of $16.1 trillion.
But some view philanthropy as a problem because it creates dependency.
And some billionaires have a different mindset about charitable trusts and the not-for-profit sector, believing this is 'spoon-feeding' Africa's majority.
Africa needs to shift from being a donor recipient to become a driver of venture philanthropy.
African countries together have 22 billionaires with a total net worth of $105 billion, according to Forbes.
South Africa takes the lead with seven, and Nigeria and Egypt with four each.
Local philanthropy is already contributing $40 million to Africa, signifying that the continent can leverage her billionaires into venture philanthropists.
For example, Aliko Dangote ($23.9 billion) donates $100 million for education, joining Patrice Motsepe, Yassen Mansour and Mohammed Dewji in the world of philanthropy and social investments.
African governments can make better policies and tax incentives to encourage the generous spirit of philanthropy;
Robert Kigongo is a sustainable development analyst. X: @kigongokr7
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
Trump and Putin end summit without Ukraine deal
ALASKA - Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin made no breakthrough on Ukraine at their high-stakes summit on Friday, pointing to areas of agreement and rekindling a friendship but offering no news on a ceasefire. After an abrupt ending to three hours of talks with aides, Trump and Putin offered warm words but took no questions from reporters - highly unusual for the media-savvy US president. "We're not there yet, but we've made progress. There's no deal until there's a deal," Trump said. He called the meeting "extremely productive" with "many points" agreed, although he did not offer specifics. "There are just a very few that are left, some are not that significant, one is probably the most significant," Trump said without elaborating. Putin also spoke in general terms of cooperation in a joint press appearance that lasted just 12 minutes. AFP | ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS "We hope that the understanding we have reached will... pave the way for peace in Ukraine," Putin said. As Trump mused about a second meeting, Putin smiled and said in English: "Next time in Moscow." The former KGB agent quickly tried to flatter Trump, who has voiced admiration for the Russian leader in the past. Putin told Trump he agreed with him that the Ukraine war, which Putin ordered, would not have happened if Trump were president instead of Joe Biden. Trump for his part again complained of a "hoax" that Russia intervened to help him the 2016 election -- a finding backed by US intelligence. AFP | Andrew CABALLERO-REYNOLDS Before the summit, Trump had warned of "severe consequences" if Russia did not accept a ceasefire. But when asked about those consequences during a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity after the talks, Trump said that "because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that now." Putin warns Western allies The friendly reception contrasted with Trump's berating of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky when he met him at the White House in February. Trump earlier said he sought a three-way meeting with Zelensky but did not announce one at the summit. Trump said he would now consult Zelensky as well as NATO leaders, who have voiced unease about the US leader's outreach to Putin. "Now it's really up to President Zelensky to get it done," Trump said in the Fox News interview after the summit. Putin warned Ukraine and European countries to "not create any obstacles" and not "make attempts to disrupt this emerging progress through provocation or behind-the-scenes intrigues." Trump invited Putin just a week ago and ensured there was some carefully choreographed drama for their first in-person meeting since 2019. The two leaders arrived in their respective presidential jets and descended on the tarmac of an air base, with Trump clapping as Putin appeared. US military might was on display with a B-2 stealth bomber flying overhead, as a reporter shouted audibly to Putin, "Will you stop killing civilians?" AFP | Drew ANGERER Putin, undaunted, grinned widely as Trump took the unusual step of escorting him into "The Beast," the secure US presidential limousine, before a meeting in a room before a screen that said -- in English only -- "Pursuing Peace." Putin smiled and joked with Russian reporters on the visit, a landmark for a leader who is facing an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court related to the Ukraine war, which has killed tens of thousands of people. Battlefield gains Russia in recent days has made battlefield gains that could strengthen Putin's hand in any ceasefire negotiations, although Ukraine announced as Putin was flying in that it had retaken several villages. Trump had insisted he would be firm with Putin, after coming under heated criticism for appearing cowed during a 2018 summit in Helsinki. While he was traveling to Alaska, the White House announced that Trump had scrapped a plan to see Putin alone and he instead held the talks alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his roving envoy Steve Witkoff. AFP | Gianrigo MARLETTA "It is time to end the war, and the necessary steps must be taken by Russia. We are counting on America," Zelensky said in a social media post. By Shaun Tandon

IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
India's bold economic play: Adapt or lose!
Director of the National Gandhi Libray from New Delhi,India Professor Annamalai Alagan addresses guests at the 132nd anniversary of Mohandas Gandhi forcibly ejected at the Pietermaritburg railway station. New Delhi has chosen a different path: swift recalibration, strategic diversification, and an unflinching focus on long-term resilience. Image: Rajesh Jantilal / File IN THE grand theatre of global economics, protectionism and Trump's Economic Nationalism, which have reshaped global trade, India has once again demonstrated why it remains one of the most adaptive players in the Global South and BRICS+ nations. The recent tariff shocks unleashed by the Trump administration, which have been boisterous, sudden, and strategically disruptive, have sent weaker economies into a spiral of retaliatory rhetoric or defensive stagnation. But India, true to form, responded with the quiet pragmatism of a nation that understands the oldest rule of economic survival: adapt or perish. As the Greek philosopher Heraclitus once declared: 'The only constant in life is change.' India, a cornerstone of the BRICS Plus bloc, seems to have internalised this wisdom better than most. While Washington's nationalist and protectionist trade policies have forced many nations into reactive posturing, New Delhi has chosen a different path: swift recalibration, strategic diversification, and an unflinching focus on long-term resilience. For Africa, a continent still wrestling with the ghosts of colonial era resource dependency and sluggish industrialisation, India's playbook offers not just inspiration, but an urgent blueprint. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ When the US government under Donald Trump announced aggressive tariffs on Indian exports, the immediate reaction in some quarters was one of outrage. After all, India and the US have enjoyed a steadily deepening trade relationship, with bilateral exchanges exceeding $100 billion (about R18 trillion) in recent years. Yet, rather than succumbing to knee-jerk protectionism or hollow threats, India's policymakers went to work quietly, methodically, and with the precision of a chess grandmaster anticipating the next move. Reports from *Economic Times* reveal that New Delhi is already crafting a multipronged response to counter stiff US tariffs through enhanced export incentives, tax rebates for manufacturers, and a renewed push to deepen trade ties with Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia while continuing trade negotiations with Washington. This is not the behaviour of an economy caught off guard; it is the hallmark of a leadership that sees crisis as an opportunity for growth and its national interest in guarding its every move. Compare this to the trajectory of many African economies, where trade policy often remains shackled to raw material exports and reactive rather than proactive adjustments. South Africa, once the continent's undisputed industrial powerhouse, has seen its manufacturing base erode over decades, leaving it overly reliant on mineral exports even as global demand patterns shift, while still beholden to Cold War slogans. The lesson? Economic resilience is not about the absence of shocks, but the capacity to diversification as an end and not a means to an end. India's agility in the face of US trade pressures is not happening in a vacuum. As a key member of BRICS+, New Delhi has not only diversified its trade partnerships but has also made strategic inroads into Africa's critical industries. Indian firms now dominate the continent's steel sector, control vast iron ore mining operations, and have positioned themselves as leading suppliers of lab-grown diamonds. This shift has sent shockwaves through traditional diamond producers like Botswana, which failed to anticipate the global consumer shift away from organic diamonds. While Botswana struggles to adjust to the reality that 'diamonds are not forever', India's lab-grown diamond exports are booming, proving once again that foresight and adaptability define economic survival. This is not just about circumventing tariffs; it's about rewriting the rules of engagement in a world where economic power is no longer monopolised by a handful of Western capitals. For Africa, the implications are profound. The continent remains the world's last great frontier of consumer market growth, yet too many of its economies remain trapped in the colonial era role of raw material suppliers. If India, a fellow developing economy, can reposition itself as a global manufacturing and services hub while navigating US protectionism, why can't Africa's industrial bases do the same? Africa's struggle with diversification is not for lack of opportunity. The African Continental Free Trade Area promises to be the world's largest single market, yet progress remains frustratingly slow. South Africa, despite its historical industrial advantages, has seen its manufacturing sector shrink from 20% of GDP in the 1990s to just 12% today. Instead of leveraging its early lead into sustained value-added production, the economy remains tethered to mining exports, a vulnerability starkly exposed whenever commodity prices fluctuate. India, meanwhile, has spent decades building economic shock absorbers. When the 1991 balance of payments crisis struck, it responded with sweeping reforms that unleashed its private sector. When the 2008 financial meltdown hit, it doubled down on domestic consumption. Now, faced with Trump's tariffs, it is accelerating its shift toward alternative markets and high-value exports. The difference is not just policy, but mindset. India operates with the understanding that global economic conditions are perpetually in flux, and survival belongs to the agile. Africa, by contrast, has often treated diversification as an academic ideal rather than an immediate imperative. The result? While India's GDP has multiplied fivefold since 2000, too many African economies remain hostage to the same commodity cycles that have dictated their fortunes for a century. The message for Africa is clear: The time for passive reliance on raw material exports is over. India's response to US tariffs proves that economic sovereignty is not about defiance, as we have seen with Advanced Economies such as Japan and Singapore, but about diversification, options and adaptability. If New Delhi can cultivate new trade alliances, incentivise value-added production, and navigate geopolitical headwinds without losing momentum, so too can Africa if it chooses to. As the world moves toward multipolar trade blocs and competing spheres of influence, India's example offers a masterclass in strategic adaptation. Trump's tariffs may have been designed to force concessions, but New Delhi's response has been something far more powerful: a demonstration of resilience that Africa would do well to emulate. In the end, Heraclitus was right: change is the only constant. But the real question is: In the Global South, who will change or perish? India, it seems, already has its answer. Africa must now find its own. * Phapano Phasha is the chairperson of The Centre for Alternative Political and Economic Thought. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, IOL, or Independent Media. Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.


Daily Maverick
17 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Investing in What Matters – And Avoiding What Doesn't
Recent global investor discussions have tended to focus on macro challenges, Trump tariffs, and the concentration of market value in a small number of technology companies. In addition, our Laurium Capital global equity team has spent a lot of time highlighting to investors the runway of growth benefiting electrification stocks as well as select pharmaceutical companies. In the case of the electrification investment thesis, the companies in our portfolio remain ongoing beneficiaries of positive demand growth as well as the need to renew and upgrade the existing electricity grid infrastructure as new generation sources are added and load management becomes more complex. In the pharmaceutical arena, we have been confronted with the opportunities presented by significant advances in oncology treatments as well as weight-loss drugs – the GLP-1 (or 'Ozempic') boom. These specific areas have provided for much of the content of our investor debates and discussions, and we have often expanded on this in our written market commentaries. However, there is another aspect of our work that we have hardly mentioned. This is what has been the 'missing' element from our global equity portfolio in recent periods – the areas of the global economy and stock market that we have actively avoided investing in, and why. In our case, the most noteworthy of these has been in consumer goods. In recent times, we have generally steered clear of companies that produce discretionary consumer goods and even those involved right through the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) value chain, save for some Coke bottlers and Heineken (we will touch on those later). This underweight is unusual for a fund that follows a 'quality' style-bias, as we do, where a company's strong financial health, pricing power, and enduring end-demand for the underlying product or service usually appeals to us as investors. These characteristics have often been closely associated with the large, successful FMCG and consumer blue-chips. So, what has kept us from investing a greater proportion of the portfolio in these consumer goods businesses, and why has this view been justified? The Concept of 'Over-Earning' Many consumer-focused businesses benefited from a unique, favourable confluence of events following the pandemic—boosted demand out of lockdown, limited competition, and enhanced pricing power. On this latter point, many companies used this strong inflation period to push prices up very meaningfully, in some cases well ahead of the level that customers are willing and/or able to pay. As a result, we believe that many of these discretionary goods companies (even in the luxury goods space) are now 'over-earning' relative to their long-term potential. This raises the risk of earnings normalization or even decline, which could leave valuations exposed. Cyclical and Macro Headwinds Consumers globally are grappling with higher interest rates, tighter credit, and renewed cost-of-living pressures. These factors weigh particularly heavily on discretionary spending and have started to challenge the revenue growth and margin stability of many traditional consumer goods companies. Meanwhile, elevated cost inflation continues to pressure input costs, making it more difficult for companies to maintain historical profitability levels. This pressure will be exacerbated by tariffs and trade barriers that raise the costs for the end-consumer. Structural Behaviour Shifts Consumer behaviour has been evolving. There is increasing demand for health-conscious, sustainable, and locally relevant brands, which challenges the dominance of traditional global FMCG giants. Digital-first and direct-to-consumer brands are growing in market share, and brand loyalty is no longer as dependable. Private label brands are of good quality, and easy to buy. As such, many of the previously 'defensive' brands in the consumer space may be less well-positioned for the next phase of consumer evolution. Hurdles to the Flow of Goods Ongoing global tensions have created several friction points in global trade, notably between producers in China and consumers in the US: Tariffs and protectionist policies, some originating during the first Trump administration as well as under Biden, remain in place and have expanded in scope. Strategic near-shoring and shifts in supply chains have increased costs and reduced efficiency. Immigration controls and labour shortages in certain markets have impacted production and distribution. Cultural fragmentation and regionalization are making global brand strategies more complex and costly. Taken together, these headwinds introduce structural challenges for global consumer businesses, especially those heavily reliant on scale and smooth cross-border logistics. Selective Exposure While we've generally remained underweight in consumer goods, we have made selective investments in companies like Coca-Cola bottlers and Heineken. These companies have demonstrated resilient demand, strong local execution models, and better ability to adapt to regional nuances and price ladders. Their exposure to emerging markets and beverages (a relatively defensive consumption category) makes them more attractive in the current environment and have helped the fund to deliver strong overall performance during a challenging period. DM About the Fund The Laurium Global Active Equity Fund is an actively managed, concentrated portfolio of global equities that aims to outperform the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI). The Fund is managed by Rob Oellermann, who brings extensive experience in global markets, and is supported by Laurium's broader Investment, Trading, and Quants teams. The team follows a disciplined, quality-oriented investment approach, focused on long-term value creation while remaining highly attuned to macroeconomic shifts, sector dynamics, and structural changes shaping the global landscape. The Laurium Global Active Equity Fund was launched in August 2021 and has delivered excellent performance since inception. It is up 20.3% in USD for the 12 months ended 31 July 2025, versus the MSCI All Country World Index return of 15.9%. It is available for USD and ZAR investments either directly or via select platforms. For more information, visit Disclaimer: Laurium Capital (Pty) Ltd is an authorised financial services provider (FSP 34142). Collective Investment Schemes in Securities (CIS) should be considered as medium to long-term investments. The value may go up as well as down and past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance. CISs are traded at the ruling price and can engage in scrip lending and borrowing. A schedule of fees, charges and maximum commissions is available on request from the Manager. A CIS may be closed to new investors in order for it to be managed more efficiently in accordance with its mandate. There is no guarantee in respect of capital or returns in a portfolio. Performance has been calculated using net NAV to NAV numbers with income reinvested. The performance for each period shown reflects the return for investors who have been fully invested for that period. Individual investor performance may differ as a result of initial fees, the actual investment date, the date of reinvestments and dividend withholding tax. Full performance calculations are available from the manager on request. Annualised performance shows longer term performance rescaled to a 1-year period. Annualised performance is the average return per year over the period. Actual annual figures are available to the investor on request. Highest and lowest is returns for any 1 year over the period since inception have been shown. NAV is the net asset value represents the assets of a Fund less its liabilities. Prescient Management Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd is registered and approved under the Collective Investment Schemes Control Act (No.45 of 2002). For any additional information such as fund prices, fees, brochures, minimum disclosure documents and application forms please go to