Uncategorized – Page 2

Virtual Philanthropy: Definition and Social Impact

Photo by Junior Teixeira on pexels.com

Shihua Ye¹, Zhongsheng Wu², Xiaochen Gong³, Yiming Dai², and Jieyu Wu¹

¹Harbin Institute of Technology Shenzhen, China, ²Zhejiang University–Zijingang Campus, Hangzhou, China, ³Beijing University of Chemical Technology, China

Imagine a day where every step, search, ride, game, or online purchase contributes to charity. From Charity Miles to Ecosia, Ant Forest, and to JustPlay, your digital actions are captured, transformed into data, and matched by sponsors to fund real-world charitable causes. This is Virtual Philanthropy, a new form of philanthropy where donations aren’t measured in money or goods, but in digital traces embedded into everyday routines. By lowering barriers and turning ordinary online behaviors into acts of charity, virtual philanthropy democratizes giving and redefines what it means to ‘be a donor’.

Despite the growing prevalence of virtual philanthropy, academia has not established a clear definition or systematic framework for its analysis. Addressing this gap, a recent mixed-method study by YE Shihua, WU Zhongsheng, GONG Xiaochen, DAI Yiming, and WU Jieyu—entitled “Virtual Philanthropy: Exploring Its Definition and Perceived Social Impact Through a Mixed-Method Approach”— represents the first systematic attempt to comprehensively examine this phenomenon. Their study provides a foundational framework to delineate the boundaries, dimensions, characteristics, and associated social impact of virtual philanthropy.

Notably, their study employs a novel approach, a modified snowball sampling method based on ChatGPT, to identify 40 global cases that offer new insights into this new emerging form of philanthropy in the digital era.

Volunteers’ interest in skill-based rewards and in awards in nonprofit organizations: a study of volunteer recognition in France

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

Guillaume Plaisance¹

¹Bordeaux University, IRGO UR4190, IAE Bordeux, France

While many non-profit organizations rely solely on the voluntary commitment of the people around them, the challenge of retaining these individuals has become paramount. In a context where the number of civil society organizations is increasing and the terms of engagement are becoming increasingly volatile, it is up to researchers to better understand the mechanisms of recognition of engagement in order to promote volunteer retention. However, recognizing engagement is complex, as it involves understanding the unique characteristics of each organization, as well as those of each individual volunteer. Indeed, volunteers do not all have the same motivations, the same drivers for engagement, or the same expectations in terms of recognition.

That is why the study I conducted sought to investigate adapted forms of rewards and awards in a specific context: that of France. French organizations are central to society, but they vary greatly in size: 75% of them have an annual budget of less than €10,000, and only 10% employ staff. The aim of the article was therefore to determine whether certain individual features and characteristics specific to volunteering could explain the interest – or lack thereof – in awards, as well as in rewards dedicated to recognizing skills. Given the context of this survey, I also wanted, in consultation with Recherches & Solidarités, to understand whether the economic, social, and political crises had an effect on volunteers’ need for recognition.

Place-based Stigma and Community Foundation Grant Making

Photo by Alex Andrews on Pexels.com

Yue Ming¹, Laurie E. Paarlberg²

¹Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, ²Indiana University Indianapolis, USA

When we think about why some nonprofit organizations receive larger grants than others, we typically focus on factors like organizational size, track record, or leadership capacity. What we do not often consider is something much more fundamental: where these organizations are located—and more importantly, where their funders are located.

Consider how place shapes perceptions in everyday life. A job applicant listing an address in an affluent suburb might be viewed more favorably than one from a neighborhood associated with poverty or crime, regardless of their actual qualifications. The same dynamic may operate in philanthropy, where the location of a grantee could influence funding decisions in ways that have little to do with organizational merit.

This phenomenon, known as “place-based stigma,” refers to the negative perceptions and symbolic “taint” attributed to individuals and organizations based on the racial and class characteristics associated with their geographic location. Places stigmatized in this way are often labeled with terms like “the wrong side of town”—and these labels carry real consequences for those who live and work there.

Despite growing awareness of these dynamics in other sectors, the role of place-based stigma in philanthropic decision-making remains largely unexplored. To investigate whether similar geographic biases operate in grantmaking, we examined the funding patterns of U.S. community foundations.

Philanthropy’s Hidden Power: How Foundations Quietly Shape Society

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

Lauren Dula¹, Laurie E. Paarlberg² , and Imoleayo Adeyeri²

¹Binghamton University, State University of New York, USA, ²Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indiana University, Indianapolis, USA

Imagine a world where unelected actors—wealthy, well-intentioned, and often invisible—have profound influence over public policy, social change, and even what counts as “the public good.” This isn’t dystopian fiction. It’s the real, often under-scrutinized, but often critiqued, world of philanthropic foundations.

For decades, foundations were seen as benevolent forces—generous patrons funding education, health care, climate action, and poverty alleviation. But as scholars and critics dig deeper, a more complex picture emerges: philanthropy is not only about giving. It’s also about power. The kind of power that shapes narratives, sets agendas, and determines whose voices get heard—and whose don’t. It is also about the norms, values, and government regulations that shape private actors’ capacity to enact their philanthropic values.

A recent integrative review by Lauren Dula of Binghamton University, SUNY, and Laurie Paarlberg and Imoleayo Adeyeri, both of the Lily School of Philanthropy, Indiana University (2025) entitled “Philanthropic Foundations and the Exercise of Power: An Integrative Literature Review of The Many Faces of Power” challenges us to take a closer look at the complexities of power and philanthropy, offering a fresh lens: the four faces of power—domination, coercion, subjugation, and manipulation—and how they operate in, through, over, and against philanthropic organizations.