As global aid declines and donor funding shifts priorities, many African countries are left dangerously exposed – especially in vital sectors like health.
Speaking at the Trialogue Business in Society Conference 2025, Nick Rockey, Managing Director of Trialogue, and Nicolette Naylor, founder of Ubuntu Global Philanthropy & Gender Justice Consulting, addressed the urgent question of whether corporate social investment (CSI) and philanthropy can fill gaps.
Rockey and Naylor were speaking during a Dialogue with Trialogue session on the latest trends on CSI and philanthropy.
The conversation was moderated by conference MC Nozipho Tshabalala.
This year’s conference was held on 13 and 14 May at The Galleria in Sandton, Johannesburg, under the theme ‘Driving impact, Inspiring change’.
The consequences of funding collapse
The United States of America and several European countries have cut back on aid funding in recent months.
South Africa and Kenya have been more resilient because their governments provide around 80% of HIV/Aids funding, but countries like Zambia, Uganda, and Tanzania have remained highly dependent on global aid, said Naylor.
“The loss of this funding has been catastrophic,” she told delegates.
Both Naylor and Rockey said CSI and philanthropy can’t replace global aid. “However, there’s an opportunity to critique the aid model and think about how we can shift to a more independent, sustainable approach, even in a climate of scarcity,” Naylor said.
From grants to leverage – rethinking CSI
Too many companies are stuck in a traditional, grant-based mindset, said Rockey, and this limits their impact and keeps them operating in silos.
“Companies still focus on isolated projects instead of collaborating on major initiatives,” he noted. “If you go to your board and say you want to invest in outcomes, they’re not used to that. Internal structures need to change.” He pointed to the lack of collaboration in the sector: “Many companies are doing similar work, but not learning from each other. The future lies in communities of practice and shared models that can be scaled up.”
Rockey acknowledged concerns around losing ownership and brand visibility but urged a shift in thinking. “Even if you’re not the primary funder, you can fund an element of a broader initiative and own that element.”
Naylor called for a systems approach and greater humility. “We need to leave logos and egos at the door,” she said. “Companies need to interrogate where their expertise lies and then work collectively.”
Philanthropy’s moment of reckoning?
During the Covid-19 pandemic, philanthropy proved it can adapt quickly.
“Philanthropy changed more in two years than it had in the previous two decades,” said Naylor, citing innovations like flexible funding, alternative reporting, and cross-sector partnerships.
However, the bar is higher now.
“Core flexible funding may have been innovative three years ago, but we must move beyond this. We need a ‘big tent’ approach, rather than working in sectoral or thematic silos, and funding should reflect coalition models that can bring about the systems change we need,” Naylor pointed out.
Global funders are also taking a broader view. “There’s a foundation in Germany that used to focus just on health and education. Now it’s looking at how those intersect with democracy in countries where authoritarianism is rising,” said Naylor.
She also noted a shift in the US funding landscape, where some donors now introduce grantees to investment consultants. “They want NPOs to invest for their own sustainability – because the donor isn’t sure their organisation will still exist in ten years.”
From beneficiaries to co-creators – how NPOs are evolving
The trend of companies establishing their own foundations has raised questions about the role of NPOs. While some worry about disintermediation, Rockey said NPOs remain critical. “They bring unmatched developmental expertise, and they still have the ability to co-create solutions.”
However, the relationship must be redefined. NPOs need to walk away from money with too many strings attached, Naylor argued, and challenged both NPOs and corporates to reimagine the donor contract. Not every NPO can – or should – become a social enterprise in the quest for sustainable funding, but there is a growing pressure to reduce donor dependency, which may mean exploring different financial models.
A call to action for the sector
Despite the current crisis in philanthropy, both speakers saw opportunities for a new kind of partnership between CSI professionals and global philanthropists. Naylor asked what such a partnership model might look like if an organisation such as the Gates Foundation, for example, has US$1 billion to spend on health in South Africa.
“I’m worried about our lack of conversations with those organisations with a presence in South Africa that are doing similar work and supporting similar organisations,” she said. “Collaboration is going to be critical, along with reimagining what we understand by success, impact, independence and sustainability.”
She noted that “there is no saviour coming” locally or from international organisations, but the remedy is working collectively on the important work that needs to be done.
