Inspiring women, inspired giving: How women are changing the face of British philanthropy

As Britain’s ‘new philanthropists’ are changing the giving landscape in the UK, there has been another important trend that has gone largely unrecognised: the growing involvement and influence of women in major philanthropy. 

Like many male philanthropists, women take a strategic and engaged approach to their philanthropy.  But, compared to men, they often seek a deeper level of engagement and connections with the causes they support, according to a Philanthropy UK panel of advisors to high-net-worth individuals.

In this way, women donors typify a key characteristic of the ‘new philanthropist’: that is, they want to do more than ‘write a cheque’; they also want to offer their time and expertise. 

Yet female philanthropists lack both the profile and recognition achieved by many male donors. Women’s philanthropy is not comprehensively reported in the press, and there still is little research on gender differences in philanthropy.  Further, women are under-represented in giving statistics, such as the Sunday Times Giving Index (see sidebar), which reflect how wealth is attributed, and so generally do not capture the influence, in major philanthropy, of women in decision-making by couples and families.  

Philanthropy UK believes that such simple statistics belie the true impact that women are having on major philanthropy in the UK – and ultimately on charities and their beneficiaries. 

To explore further women’s role in major philanthropy, we sought the insights of a range of professional advisors serving a breadth of male and female clients. The seven advisors we consulted represented a mix of wealth management, legal, family office and specialist philanthropy advisory organisations.

We hope that these findings stimulate further dialogue about women and philanthropy, and encourage research into this important area.

Giving Index misses out on women

The business entrepreneurs and City professionals who dominate the Sunday Times Giving Index (which ranks the top 30 philanthropists by their giving as a percentage of their wealth) are predominately male. Out of the 67 different people who have appeared in the Giving Index over the last four years, only 7, or about 10%, were women. In 2006, not one of the 30 Giving Index members was female.

“This is largely because the Giving Index is derived from the Sunday Times Rich List,” explains Alastair McCall, Editor of the Giving Index. “There is a significant gender imbalance in the Rich List, with 1,028 men making the List in 2007, compared with only 92 women.  There are wider sociological issues at play: women are under-represented in the board room and at chief executive level, for instance.”

And, because both the Rich List and Giving Index are based on the individuals from whom the wealth is derived, it is often men who are recognised as the givers.  For example, David and Heather Stevens – who donated half their stake in Admiral Insurance to endow a new charitable foundation – topped the 2007 Giving Index; but in second place is hedge fund manager Christopher Hohn – yet it is his wife Jamie Cooper-Hohn who runs the family’s foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation. Similarly, the wealth of the Rausing family is attributed to Hans Rausing, and so his daughters, Sigrid and Lisbet, both prominent philanthropists, do not appear.

McCall comments, “Of course, giving is often done as a partnership, and women play a critical role in major philanthropy.”

•  The 2008 Sunday Times Rich List and Giving Index will be published in the spring.

Influence

A growing number of women are becoming more engaged and influential in their family’s philanthropy.  And, one solicitor reported that more female clients are setting up their own foundations, and also that more are playing an increasingly influential role in their family’s philanthropy. 

“Women are often the decision-makers; they are the ones who make things happen”, remarked Harry Charlton, Head of Client Development at New Philanthropy Capital (NPC).  Other philanthropy advisors we spoke to agreed.  Said Heather Maizels, Barclays Wealth Director and Head of Philanthropy: “The women seem to be the chief influencers on where the money eventually goes.” 

Theresa Lloyd, philanthropy consultant and Founder Director of Philanthropy UK, adds: “My research for Why Rich People Give showed that for couples major philanthropy was usually a joint decision. Even if one person appeared to lead on a relationship with the beneficiary, both partners had to feel involved for a commitment to a significant gift.”

Indeed, family giving is becoming more inclusive.  As Tanja Jegger, Head of Philanthropy at the wealth manager Stonehage, explained, “In a family foundation setting, women can and often do play a leading role in deciding on themes and specific projects.”  Maizels elaborated, “Women seem to be more interested in family philanthropy, seeing it as a way to bind siblings together, involve less affluent cousins and be a way of ensuring that the family have a continuing way of sharing their lives.”

Women’s growing influence in decision-making is good news for charities, as women tend to be more generous than men with their gifts, as highlighted in recent research from the US (see ‘Among singles, women are more generous, US research shows’, in Latest News on our website).  Philanthropist Sigrid Rausing observes: “The main gender difference is that men have access to considerably more capital than do women overall; but also, I believe, that women (like the poor) are rather more generous with what they have.” 

Engagement

As women are becoming more influential in giving decisions, they also are becoming more engaged in the giving process. One advisor to a family office noted that the younger generation of women in the family are more active than their forebears in their philanthropy: “They are very connected, strategic and involved.”

Yet the experience of the advisors we spoke to suggests that women’s engagement differs in a fundamental respect: in addition to taking a strategic approach, women also seek a “deeper involvement and connection” with the issues. Jegger commented, “Women are typically quite emotionally attached to the causes they engage in, with time and expertise being just as important as financial support.”

One family office advisor has noted a similar pattern in clients: “Women are more closely involved with their grantees than are the men in the same generation; they feel more comfortable with an emotional response. They also seem to be more motivated, believing that ‘some things are just wrong’.”

And a solicitor observed of his clients, “Women generally seek emotional engagement with grant recipients, whereas men typically do not want to deal at an emotional level with beneficiaries.”
 

Impact

Women are more likely to fund “harder causes” and individuals “on the margins of society”, according to our panel of advisors.  This may be, perhaps, because of a deeper emotional engagement with beneficiaries; although we simply don’t know, as there is little research to draw on. Vivienne Hayes, Director of the Women’s Resource Centre, a charity which supports women’s organisations to be more effective and sustainable, wonders, “It could be that the struggles for recognition and equal rights that women have faced in their own careers and families fuel their engagement with causes and communities on the margins.”

For example, the top three causes targeted by NPC’s female clients are refugees, mental health and domestic violence (see graph).  In contrast, the most popular causes amongst NPC’s male clients include cancer, and truancy and exclusion; areas where outcomes are more easily measurable and quantifiable.  Women also seem to want to be involved locally, solving problems and building infrastructure closer to home, according to some advisors.

Several advisors suggested that women may be more comfortable than men with intangible results.  Having an impact is just as important to women, but they monitor results partly through their personal engagement with the charity.  Rausing commented on the importance of appropriate outcomes measurement: “Measuring outcome has a cost, and needs to be thought about – too much, and you get jargon and glossy reports. Too little, and organisations can lose their way.”

Jegger explained, “While men may often be more structured and results-oriented, women can be more process-oriented, often selecting smaller projects, where they feel they can make more impact.”

Men also are more likely to seek to “make their mark” on something, such as having their name on a building, while women seem less concerned with recognition; and one advisor noted that, once a gift is made, men generally view it as still their own money, whereas women tend to view it as the charity’s money.  Philanthropist Dame Stephanie Shirley, writing in this issue of the Newsletter, remarks, “Givers, speaking especially for women, care about the issues and are ‘care-ful’ about them.  A man typically might ask ‘what does society expect a man in my position to do?’ and ‘what recognition will I get out of it?’  Women seem less interested in these fripperies and perhaps focus more on ‘how can I make the most difference?’”

Advice

Women also can be more thoughtful and consultative in their giving, and more willing to seek advice.  For instance, Maizels notes that “Women generally tend to seek advice more than men on investment matters, and we have noticed that this trend also applies to philanthropy.”
 
Several advisors reported that their male clients tended to be more “directive” with their giving.  They want the problem solved, but are more likely to use an intermediary to achieve their objectives.  In contrast, women are more “consultative and involving”.  Charlton explains, “Women want to engage with the problem and understand the issues; they seek a deeper level of engagement with the beneficiaries.”  Lloyd agrees: “Women are more active managers; they are more hands-on. They often ‘start small’ and learn. They do not want to reinvent the wheel.”

There are, of course, notable exceptions to these trends. Though in general, women are becoming more involved – and more influential – in giving decisions, and they are becoming increasingly engaged with beneficiaries.  Renu Mehta, philanthropist and founder of the Fortune Forum, observes, “Traditionally, women are more triggered by emotion, and men are more analytical.  But the line is blurring, especially with the emergence of the philanthropy ‘power couple’ – such as Bill and Melinda Gates, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, and Chris and Jamie Cooper-Hohn – where we are seeing a cross-fertilization of perspectives.” 

“In major philanthropy,” an advisor concludes, “as a couple, men and women are a great balancing act.” 

Back to top>>