"Philea - Philanthropy Europe Association" represents the diversity of foundation interests in Brussels

An open understanding of philanthropy

However, according to Delphine Moralis, Philea' s understanding of philanthropy is not static. Instead, she sees something that she calls "institutional philanthropy". Moralis is Philea' s Chief Executive Officer and has helped shape the development of the umbrella organization from the very beginning. The Brussels-based organization was formed at the end of 2021 from the merger of the Donors and Foundations Network in Europe (DAFNE) and its larger partner, the European Foundation Centre (EFC), which was founded in Brussels in 1989 and for which Delphine Moralis was already working. In other words: Bringing together players in the foundation sector, including at European level, is an undertaking that goes back much further in time. Bringing the two predecessor organizations together was a lengthy process. Two very different membership structures had to be united. It helped that those involved knew each other well.

According to Moralis, the European Association of Foundations now has 312 members, 28 of which are national associations. Depending on how they are counted, these represent a total of around 8,000 to 9,000 organizations. However, these figures are not easy to read. Neither the members of SwissFoundations nor those of the Association of German Foundations are automatically members of Philea. Due to the focus on Brussels in its own activities, Philea as an umbrella organization is also not known to all players in the sector "at grassroots level" in the individual foundations. There may still be room for improvement, but that is not decisive. After all, it is not Philea's job to get involved in discussions at country level. This is also a kind of balancing act, as Moralis explains: "The challenge of an infrastructural organization like Philea is that we want to be as close as possible to our members and at the same time have to maintain an overview of the bigger picture." The limits to this can also be found in another direction as soon as Philea is active outside the European context. The accusation of Eurocentrism can then quickly arise.

Structurally open to different forms of engagement

The horizon in which Philea is therefore looking is the development of philanthropic forms: "We are convinced that philanthropy can help shape, support and promote a pluralistic, just and resilient society that puts people and the needs of our world at the center." Philea has also been structured with this vision in mind for its members: In addition to traditional foundations, the association is open to philanthropic organizations as well as philanthropy infrastructure organizations. The concept is extended even further by associate members. Such associate members can be service organizations, companies or NGOs that work together with foundations. The use of resources for the public good is the core of the approach, which aims to bring together many different players on a deliberately broad spectrum. However, just as a transnational alignment of interests is what makes membership of Philea relevant in the first place, the financial background of an organization is also an important aspect. Depending on the actual annual expenditure of a foundation, its contribution for full membership can be up to 14,000 euros per year. Despite the sliding scale of membership fees, membership for the Maecenata Foundation, for example, would be inconceivable against this background. However, as a member of the predecessor structures and as a German partner in the Transnational Giving project, the foundation was automatically one of the founding members along with others.

At the same time, the structures are of course correspondingly permeable: As a member of the Swissfoundations association, for example, Swiss foundations benefit from offers and services that SwissFoundations makes possible as a member of Philea. Direct members are the larger players, such as the Mercator Foundation Switzerland or, in Austria, the Caritas Foundation and ERSTE Foundation. Franz Karl Prüller is Senior Advisor to the Board for the latter. He is also Vice President of the Association for Charitable Foundations in Austria. At Philea, he finds "a whole range of other large European foundations that also want to promote the overall development of the foundation system in Europe through their membership."

Enabling networking on a larger scale

In practice, this means that many very different players can connect with each other. This is made possible by different formats that are geared towards more general engagement: "We offer webinars and annual events for a broader audience, for example, and also meet organizations there that are regular participants without being members of Philea," says Moralis. The informal exchange in particular is an opportunity that should not be underestimated. Jasmin Guggisberg also emphasizes this. She is Head of Communications at the Swiss association Swissfoundations: "Of course, we already have access to each other in the D-A-CH region. But being able to widen the circle even further at European level gives us access to other associations." Philea's benchmark reports, based on surveys, also enable a direct comparison of the associations. "If we can see who has what challenges and where, we can also discuss them bilaterally," says Guggisberg. She calls Philea a "linking actor for the larger issues", whose mediation work is precisely the central characteristic. Markus Jung is also aware that Philea succeeds in building bridges. He is Head of Politics at the Association of German Foundations: "Philea's work is not apolitical, but it is not so strongly politicized." Jung also speaks of many confidence-building measures, across all sectors and, above all, on an ongoing basis.

The commonalities between the members can be found in their shared interests. In order to be able to bundle efforts and interests as effectively as possible as an umbrella organization, Philea has defined three core areas for the coming years: climate, equality and democracy. These emerged from surveys of members. In view of the shrinking spaces for civil society worldwide and cuts in funding in every conceivable area, the role of foundations is also inevitably changing. Grant-making foundations, for example, have become the focus of attention within a very short space of time.

Growing importance of transnational giving

This has almost inevitably led to a further, growing interest in cooperation, including across Europe. This is why the Transnational Giving project is becoming increasingly important. It was only in July that the Belgian King Baudouin Foundation handed over the lead to Philea. It is now desirable for this project to be expanded as quickly as possible. So far, the possibilities here are still limited to the form of donations between the European member states of this network. Cross-border funding for foundations at European level has not yet been made possible by these structures. According to official information from Philea, the annual costs for foundations in transnational activities amount to an estimated 90 to 100 million euros, money that is urgently needed. However, Delphine Moralis also takes a realistic view of the developments: "Philanthropy is not in a position to fill all the gaps here. But it does have the potential to think and act differently. Transnational Giving should form a strong unit for this and be part of the solution. That's what we're working on."

Behind this, however, there is also a need for structural renewal within the foundations themselves, as Moralis knows: "Many foundations are currently undergoing changes. They want to be leaner, more attentive in their activities and take greater risks."

Depending on the perspective, the respective framework conditions for this can be perceived differently. The foundation system in Switzerland, for example, is much more developed and has grown historically than in Austria. Many Swiss foundations, on the other hand, operate locally, which means that discourse at European level does not always appear relevant to them or is not relevant at all. The differences in the D-A-CH region alone pose challenges for cross-border activities. In a broader context, a country's membership of the EU also comes into view. As a result, clearly different discourses are conducted in parallel.

Solidarization of civil society

The foundation sector is therefore far from being a uniform Europe. This is the background against which Philea operates. And not without success, as Prüller believes. He sees a positive, dynamic development that is far from complete. "But I think the members basically feel that things are happening that are of benefit to them, where they can connect very directly if they want to. And we can also see from the various activities that there is a clear voice for the sector in Brussels." And Prüller goes even further when it comes to Philea's future direction: "Above all, the willingness of the European Union and its institutions to work with civil society organizations in a direct form and not through government agencies would also be an important aspect of Philea's lobbying work."

Ultimately, it all boils down to the idea of solidarity. Markus Jung emphasizes this point, as does Rupert Graf Strachwitz: "I have always been an advocate of the theory that foundations are an integral part of civil society and must also be integrated. And this has been achieved much better through the European association than initially at national level. The European association has contributed to a clear solidarity in civil society."