In these strange times, I have been watching the way funders and philanthropists are responding to the coronavirus pandemic. It is one way to keep some focus on more positive activities amongst the gloom. So, I have gathered some of what I have seen along with some of the questions this raises as we prepare for the coming months …

Jeff Bezos’ announcement of his £10bn Earth Fund is the latest high-profile example of a philanthropist committing new money to environmental causes. Will this shift keep growing? Will more resources continue to flow into environmental causes?

Although many people think it is simple, giving is no easy task. It is no wonder that some funders seek an easy way through to decisions. Here I set out a couple of recent examples and explain why I am not an advocate of these approaches that are more about luck than judgment …

Earlier in the year NCVO produced an ethical code that identified four principles that every UK charity should uphold. It made me consider whether it would be possible to develop such a code for all philanthropic individuals and institutions. Here I set out some contenders and my four choices. What would yours be?

It is difficult to give honest feedback to funders about their application processes. Nobody wants to risk criticising them – wouldn’t that be biting the hand that feeds you? But funders need feedback and here are some options for them to hear what applicants have to say.

In John F Kennedy’s speech in 1962 announcing America’s mission, the words he uses are: “we choose to go the moon”. The climate crisis is our challenge. In the UK less than 4% of Foundation’s funding goes to the environment. The money is not matching the rise in public profile and concern, or the size of the problem. Will we choose to fund the planet?

Gaming is a booming industry. Not surprisingly, gaming has attracted fundraisers who are looking for new income streams and seeking to engage with a younger audience. For anyone, say over 30, who feels an outsider in this world of gaming, you can be reassured that the philanthropic initiatives that look to tap into this potential generosity are familiar.

There is a rise of ‘proactive philanthropy’ - where donors and grant makers seek out the organisations they want to fund. For charities and other voluntary sector organisations this means that rather than having the control of presenting yourself in an application form, you could be externally reviewed at any time. Here are my top tips for being ready

Is it better to be responsive or proactive in your philanthropy? There are downsides to both: being responsive can mean efforts are dispersed and impact diluted, whereas being proactive risks a funder driving the agenda without full knowledge and therefore missing opportunities. How does it work in practice?

The way we use words reflects changes in ethos and practice. Recently it has seemed that grants were under attack as the word ‘grant’ diminished in use.

Grant giving is not just a transfer of funds or a process, but an expression of trust. Awarding a grant is trusting that the organisation supported will do what they said they would with the money and will do their best to achieve what they are setting out to do. Whilst it is right to pay attention to the risks and to measure impact, I find that very little attention is paid to the other side of the coin: trust.

I love listening to podcasts – they are an intimate medium, you can listen when you want to, they are often advert-free and they offer a length and depth of experience that can fully absorb you on an otherwise boring commute. So which podcasts might be good for a philanthropist or philanthropy professional to listen to?

Ask any funder their top reason for turning down an application and they will say “because the applicant did not read the guidance”. Which begs the question: why don’t people read the guidance? Or if they do read it, why do they go ahead and apply anyway even though they don’t fit with the criteria. Here are the seven reasons I have come up with.

Being proportionate should also be a guiding principle for funders. The application, assessment and reporting processes should all be mindful of the effort spent by the applicant and grant holder. But the lack of external challenge and accountability means it is easy for funders to place taxing and time-consuming requirements on those seeking their funds.

Different funding models rise and fall in popularity and right now it is impact investment that is riding the crest of the wave. But just how welcome is the rise in impact investing? It all depends on where you are standing.