For this edition of our breakfast series, we looked beyond our own borders. Held in English and in the afternoon to accommodate different time zones, the session brought together four voices driving trust-based philanthropy forward on four continents: Ben Cairns (IVAR – Institute for Voluntary Action Research), Shaady Salehi (Trust-Based Philanthropy Project), Tamanna Basu (Better Funding), and Sadakazu Ikawa and Kenta Aoki (Trust-Based Philanthropy Japan). Together, they traced how one shared idea, that trust between funders and grantees can reshape philanthropy, is taking hold in very different contexts around the world, and what that tells us about the movement as a whole.

One Movement, Many Images

To kick things off, each guest had been asked to provide an image that comes to mind when they think of trust-based philanthropy. The pictures said as much as the introductions themselves: varied views and experiences on the same topic. Ben showed a pen given to him by his team — the inscription a nod to IVAR’s guiding principle that form follows function. Tamanna described a plant nurtured by many hands, with nurture itself as a kind of superpower capable of transforming relationships. Sadakazu brought a picture of a traditional Japanese house, with its engawa — the in-between space where inside and outside meet — as a metaphor for the fact that trust does not happen automatically: it has to be cultivated, and the space has to be designed so it can grow. Shaady framed her work around a single conviction: if leaders across the sector prioritise trusting relationships with one another, an ecosystem of trust develops that strengthens the whole field.

Where Does Trust-Based Philanthropy Stand Today?

Asked how far trust-based philanthropy has actually travelled in their part of the world, the panel painted a picture of real but uneven progress. In the US, Shaady has seen significant growth since 2020: more unrestricted funding, more streamlined processes, and a new openness to talk about power. But the benefits have mostly reached grantees who already had long-standing relationships with funders — newer grantees still face steep imbalances — and, against a backdrop of federal funding cuts and rising need, the pace of change is not keeping up.

In India, Tamanna described a landscape where the vocabulary differs but the underlying conversation about equality and partnership is growing. Family foundations are often leading by example, even without naming what they do as „trust-based.“ Corporate funders, by contrast, play a big role in the Indian philanthropic landscape. They bring a business mindset to the table that is shaped by mandatory CSR giving that does not easily foster trust. A broader cultural distrust of nonprofits means organisations still have to work hard just to prove they are credible.

Ben sees real momentum in the UK, catalysed in part by the pandemic: open and trusting practice is moving into the mainstream and reaching foundations of every size. But he was careful to temper the optimism: open and trusting grantmaking is not the UK’s funding tradition, and restricted short-term funding is still the industry standard, shifting this will take a generational change. „Plenty of room for optimism, but no room for complacency,“ as Ben put it.

In Japan, the movement is still young. Trust-Based Philanthropy Japan is only two years old, and the term itself is new to many. Some funders are curious to learn; others feel they have already been using a trust-based approach and do not need a new label. Either way, Sadakazu noted, having the name gives people a reason to start the conversation — trust-based philanthropy, at its core, is an effort to strengthen trust between funder, grantee, and community.

Shifting Power: Tools Versus Real Change

The second half of the conversation pushed past the familiar toolkit — multi-year funding, unrestricted grants, simplified reporting — to ask a harder question: how much power has actually shifted, and how much is just repackaged process?

Ben was candid about the discomfort this raises, even as a convener of the movement: IVAR is itself dependent on funders, and even from his own privileged position in the sector, he does not always feel comfortable telling funders just how poor some of their practices still are. But he has also seen what happens when funders genuinely recognise their dependence on the organisations they fund — when that shift comes from the top, it changes everything. The adoption is real, he stressed, but it sits on a wide spectrum.

From Japan, Kenta pointed to a more basic issue: many funders simply are not aware of how much power they hold. He described a kind of fractal pattern: where grantees are not respected, grants managers inside the foundation often are not respected either. In these cases, role switching exercises have proven helpful in shifting power. Another positive practice Kenta mentioned, was actively listening and asking for feedback from grantees as well as applicants that made it to the last round, but not any further. Over time, they have noticed that grantees grow more comfortable in giving feedback. Power, they suggested, has not fully shifted but it is being wielded differently.

Tamanna sees power shifts too, but mostly within a small group of smaller and family foundations. The corporate world remains harder to reach: India’s mandatory corporate giving requirements bring rigid hierarchies and efficiency-driven assumptions into funding relationships — she pointed to something as simple as scheduling a call at 6 pm as an example of the human cost that gets overlooked.

Shaady responded to a recurring objection, that some funders feel they have „already been doing this“ without needing a new name, by pointing out that a shared term carries its own power. Because it means no one has to drive change alone. She also named what she sees as the ultimate precondition for creating lasting change: without a genuine buy-in from an organisation’s leadership, the chances of a real power shift are slim. Trust-based philanthropy, in her view, goes well beyond individual practices — it touches four interconnected dimensions of an organisation: culture, structure, practice, and leadership — and moving toward more participatory funding is ultimately a generational shift that takes time.

Closing Thoughts: What Should Funders Take Away?

Asked for one final message to leave funders with each guest offered a different angle on the same underlying conviction. Sadakazu wanted, above all, to share hope. Tamanna encouraged funders to simply step outside their comfort zone and see what happens. Ben called for faith in the power of the collective. And Shaady closed with a challenge: identify your sphere of influence — and use it.