The state of the pledgers fifteen years later.
“Actions speak louder than words” is a proverb that entrepreneur Chuck Feeney took to heart. Throughout his ninety-two years, Feeney was a poignant example of “giving while living.” He firmly believed that the purpose of wealth was to improve the human condition. He founded Atlantic Philanthropies in 1982 and actively gave away his fortune of eight billion before his death in 2023, with their last grant awarded in 2016.
Mr. Feeney was the inspiration, and one of the original signers, of the Giving Pledge. Founded by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in 2010, the Giving Pledge is a formal declaration of one’s intent to give away over half of one’s wealth to charitable causes, while alive or at death. Gates and Buffett were impacted by Feeney’s charitable giving saying, “Chuck has been an inspiration to both of us for many years and was living the Giving Pledge long before we launched this project… He’s long been a leader in American philanthropy by his example, showing tremendous dedication and thoughtfulness in the way he approaches giving.”
Now marking its fifteenth anniversary, The Giving Pledge has come under some scrutiny from the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). In their recent report, IPS takes a deep dive into Pledge data, commending those that are working toward fulfilling promises while calling out those that need to “pick up the pace.” IPS strongly suggests that billionaires cannot be left to their own devices to distribute their wealth in a timely or effective manner. Instead, there must be an overhaul of how wealth is allowed to accumulate, and they propose several reforms to the charitable system.
Aimed at billionaires, the Giving Pledge began with fifty-seven original Pledgers in the first year. That number has since grown (slowly) to 256 current participants representing more than thirty countries. Despite this growth, only thirteen percent of billionaires have signed the pledge and even fewer have fulfilled it. According to IPS research, roughly eighty percent of funds donated by Pledgers have gone into private foundations. That amount could be even higher if Donor Advised Funds (DAF) were taken into account. These methods of giving allow the wealthy to control their money a little longer and avoid taxes, rather than giving immediately and directly to charitable causes. Consequently, it slows down the potential flow of funds that could benefit society now.
Meanwhile, the collective wealth of the original Pledgers has increased by nearly 300%. If all pledges were fulfilled today, a potential $370 billion could be made available to charitable causes. This type of funding could assist communities in building long-term resilience and transformative solutions to social issues, rather than serving as a temporary band-aid.
The Giving Pledge was founded on good intentions—setting new norms of generosity among the super wealthy, creating a community of peers, and helping to educate those new to wealth. In 2014, many of the children and grandchildren of the original signers created the NextGen group of philanthropists, made up of 300 individuals between the ages of eighteen and seventy-five. Many in this next generation, however, are breaking from traditional philanthropy. There is now a growing push for “impact investing,” commercial investments with the intention of generating both a positive financial return and a measurable social or environmental impact. Proponents argue that impact investing is different from traditional investing by actively seeking positive outcomes beyond financial profit. The NextGen of the Giving Pledge is actively promoting three main areas of giving: grantmaking, impact investing, and policy/advocacy. This shift in giving, however, blurs the lines between charitable giving (traditional grants and donations) and for-profit investment—and may make it even harder for nonprofits to access critical funding.
While it appears that many Pledgers keep accumulating wealth, there are those that have taken it seriously. For example, MacKenzie Scott gained her wealth, took the pledge, and has since pulled in expert advisors from her areas of interest. She has made direct, transformative gifts informed by those best equipped to design solutions—contributing more than nineteen billion since 2019. Founding Giving Pledge member, Bill Gates, recently announced that the Gates Foundation will double its giving over the next twenty years, donating virtually all of Gates’ wealth and living up to the original intentions of the Giving Pledge.
Yet for many others, it appears the Giving Pledge is words without action—the opposite of Mr. Feeney’s example. Signing the Giving Pledge creates visibility for wealthy donors, but it remains completely voluntary with no accountability or binding agreements. IPS suggests Pledgers revitalize the movement and adopt the “Feeney Giving Pledge”: pay your fair share of taxes, give while you live, and empower organizations to solve urgent problems.
While it’s natural for us to analyze and critique how the Giving Pledge has evolved, the Pledgers don’t owe anyone an explanation of how they distribute their wealth. Their actions speak for themselves.
At our roots, our charitable nature is part of what makes America great. Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this, noting that Americans made sincere sacrifices for the public good—unique from other countries in his experience. While we can’t control what others do with their money, we can hold ourselves accountable for the good we are able to enact and make our own “Feeney Pledge.” Meanwhile, we watch and wait for what the next fifteen years of the Giving Pledge may bring.