We have all heard about philanthropy or about the world’s great philanthropists, from Bill and Melinda Gates to Warren Buffett, but we often ignore what it really implies.
The simplest look associates it with something that we know very well and that we even do: donate. Or, in other words, with giving money to someone trusting that it will have a much greater impact on their life than that amount would have on ours. However, philanthropy is more than that, especially when a company or individual benefactor aims to make the greatest impact possible. We are talking about an institutionalized activity, carried out by organizations with professional boards and permanent staff, which mobilizes resources, energy and time of hundreds of people.
And in Peru, like other things, this has evolved a lot in the last decade. This is demonstrated by a study by Universidad del Pacífico professor Vicente León, published in alliance with the Credicorp Ideas Bank and which I had the pleasure of presenting a few weeks ago. Among the main transformations that this activity has experienced, I highlight three.
The first is that philanthropic organizations have changed from a welfare approach, which aims to mitigate the immediate effects of poverty, to one of capacity development, which seeks rather to correct the structural causes that cause it in the long term. The second is that the amount of money they attract has grown: between 2017 and 2025, the average income per organization multiplied by more than five. This means greater resources to impact society, but also more responsibility to choose how they are spent. Finally, a third change is that, although the priority is still social development and education, the environment has been gaining prominence, a feature of the times we live in, in which phenomena such as El Niño arouse more and more concern among Peruvians.
However, despite the progress made, this activity still faces several challenges that limit its impact. One of them is transparency. The publication of financial statements by philanthropic organizations went from 28% in 2017 to only 8% in 2025. A situation that requires attention, given that being transparent is essential to build trust, not only with potential donors or beneficiaries, but also with society.
Another challenge is governance: these organizations generally have boards of directors, and this is a positive thing. However, these positions are rarely renewed, there are no performance evaluations for those who occupy them, and they are rarely filled by external members. As we know, in a private company, evaluating and changing the board from time to time is essential to ensure that the organization is moving on the right path; In philanthropy, the standards should not be different.
Finally, a third challenge has to do with what the author calls ‘knowledge management’: the need for all decisions to be made on the basis of evidence, data and prior learning. It is not about giving for the sake of giving, but doing it based on a strategy. When we donate out of pocket, for example, we act guided by emotion. In philanthropy, however, deciding emotionally has consequences, such as wasting scarce resources or failing to attend to much more serious emergencies.
In a country with so many gaps and with a State that has difficulties reaching everyone, a well-executed philanthropic intervention can have multiplier effects on thousands of Peruvians. And, similarly, a poorly calibrated one will only generate high costs, both economic and opportunity costs.
I am convinced that philanthropy has the potential to change the future of Peru, accelerating the changes that our society needs. But to take advantage of it we must stop seeing it as simple altruism and start thinking about it for what it really is: a professional activity that works with the highest standards and where nothing is left to chance.
