A handful of environmental groups were among the nearly 350 nonprofits which, in recent months, received one of those now-legendary checks from MacKenzie Scott, offering fresh insight into her green giving priorities and a sliver of hope for those wanting to see even more such awards.
Since the billionaire philanthropist started emptying her safe two and a half years ago, she has sent hundreds of millions of dollars to environmental organizations, which would signal a top priority for just about any other donor. Yet, relative to the roughly $14 billion Scott has given out to date, environmental causes are a smaller theme in her giving, with clusters of such grantees only appearing a couple times in the novelist’s biannual Medium posts.
Last week’s list of about $2 billion in gifts does, however, mark two consecutive cycles with several green recipients — and it doubles down on some of the themes established in her previous batch of green gifts, with a majority of grants going to groups in the Global South and exhibiting a particular fondness for Brazil, as well as again backing movement groups for whom climate justice is one of several rallying cries.
Her post also offers an explicit endorsement of all types of regrantors, acknowledging Scott’s clear preference for pooled funds with close connections to the communities they serve. For the many environmental intermediaries out there who have yet to receive an award from Scott, the post offers not only hope, but further examples of the kinds of structures and priorities that have led to those mysterious calls.
It remains to be seen whether this round is a sign that green groups will see more support from Scott in the future, or if the back-to-back batches of environmental awards are outliers. Note that the latest bundle of green donations is much smaller than the one before. I counted just five groups that are squarely focused on the environment, and just over a half-dozen other nonprofits — from grassroots movement groups to international development operations — whose work includes a climate or environmental component.
Of course, environmental work happens at the intersection of many issues, several of which Scott also prioritizes. So it could be a bit reductive to focus only on these donations as indicators of the donor’s interest in all things green. But with that risk in mind, here’s who got calls this time and some possible clues they offer to those attempting to divine Scott’s motivations.
Which green groups got checks this time?
Perhaps the least surprising environmental organization on Scott’s list was the Global Greengrants Fund, given two of its close partners were recipients last round. Like them, the organization grants to grassroots groups around the globe, with more than $9 million issued last year. Scott’s unrestricted grant was the biggest gift in the fund’s 30-year history, said Laura García, president and CEO.
There’s a trend predating Scott’s philanthropy of progressive funders shifting more resources to grassroots movements, particularly in the Global South, and using regrantors to reach the front-line organizations that drive such waves of change, García said.
“She’s definitely riding the wave and helping push it even further,” García said. “She is the innovator in the sense that she’s giving that amount of money fast, and trusting the grantees like nobody has ever trusted us before.”
Another grantee, Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) in India, shows Scott’s willingness to fund not just intermediaries, but those doing the work on the ground. Born out of a national dairy board initiative to create village-level cooperatives, the group has now expanded its work to partner with governments and nonprofits to restore degraded forests, pastures and bodies of water used by communities, known as commons, throughout the country.
“This gives us quite a significant amount of leg room in terms of doing the work,” said Sanjay Joshie, executive director, noting that the donation was unrestricted, a signature of Scott’s giving. “It’s a huge grant in terms of our annual budget.” The group already had significant backers, including the Skoll Foundation and Omidyar Network, as well as Indian funders such as Tata Trusts, the philanthropic arm of the Mumbai-based multinational.
Joshie told me with a laugh that they have “no sense” of why their organization was chosen. That is, of course, other than its track record, ongoing work and vision. They hope the award leads other nonprofits and funders to work on commons. “The more the merrier,” he said. “It’s not a competition, it’s a kind of a collaborative call we’ve made to all the actors… think tanks, research organizations, government and others.”
Scott’s list also included two Brazil-based groups, Foundation for Amazon Sustainability and Instituto Socioambiental, which, like FES, work with local people to restore the lands where they live and work. Both work with Indigenous people and other communities on both conservation and economic opportunities within the Amazon and the other natural zones of the country.
The final explicitly environmental grantee, at least that I identified, is Water for People. As its name suggests, it works to provide safe drinking water, focusing on nine countries across Latin America, Asia and Africa. Like other recipients, the organization emphasizes the role of local communities in explaining its work. Otherwise, it seems a somewhat more traditional choice for Scott, focused on providing a valuable resource, but without a stated goal of building political power or supporting specific marginalized communities.
A philanthropist for the Global South?
It’s worth repeating that analyzing a group of five green grantees for trends can offer misleading returns. For instance, I could tell you that 40% of Scott’s green grantees are based in Colorado, but I don’t think that means the Centennial State has some special hold on her team.
That said, when you combine the environment-focused grantees and those with connections to environmental work, nearly two-thirds of all such awards are going to organizations headquartered outside the United States — and all are in the Global South. Add in that the U.S.-based groups mostly focus their funding abroad, plus her past grantmaking’s focus on grassroots groups around the world, and it should be clear — if it wasn’t already — that this is a prime motivation.
Digging deeper into the particulars, it seems notable that two out of five hail from Brazil. Yes, that might be a Colorado-type coincidence. But given nonprofits — environmental and beyond — from the South American nation featured prominently in her last round, as my colleague Liz Longley explored, it’s a clear priority area.
“The Amazon is pretty high on a lot of people’s radar,” said Nikhil Aziz, director of land, water and climate justice at American Jewish World Service, which has not received a Scott grant, but whose frequent partners have, including Global Greengrants Fund in this round.
It’s about who’s in charge
Though brief, Scott’s post makes explicit what her past writing and grantmaking shows is the key ingredient her team seeks, whether in funds or other nonprofits: “teams with lived experience in the issues they’re addressing.”
This is a common thread among the otherwise disparate group of grantees in this round for whom environmental issues are part of their domain but not its totality. There’s a Nairobi-based behavioral science research lab focused on interventions in the Global South. There’s a network of community foundations — a fund of funds, if you will — that operates from Johannesburg and has staff across Africa and Europe. And there are identity-based funds, like in past rounds, such as the Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples or woman-centered Fondo Lunaria Mujer, led by those communities.
In short, Scott seems to care most about who’s in charge. There are certain tendencies in her green-related giving, but she’s clearly open to multiple approaches.
Of course, it’s always worth noting that with her current level of disclosure, we can really only speculate as to what Scott’s preferences are, outside of what she communicates in her blog posts. “If this is all being driven by a consulting firm, then it’s also, you know, how much of this is her? And how much of it is who’s giving the advice?” Aziz said.
In speed and volume or her trust for grantees, Scott’s giving spree has been one of the great revelations of modern philanthropy. “We have here a donor that actually said ‘yes’ to all of the trends that are happening, to all of the demands of grantees,” García told me. “She’s said yes to all of them.”
But for all the radical openness to new methods, there’s been a quite traditional silence around her process. For all her focus on who’s in charge of grantees, we can’t answer that same question for her operation, other than through some great reporting by Teddy Schleifer at Puck. Scott has, however, suggested more is on the way. She wrote in late 2021 that she would launch a website “at some point next year” that would include a gift database and explain her giving process. She’s running short of time, but maybe sometime in the next few weeks we’ll have more to go on.
Environment-focused recipients:
Foundation for Amazon Sustainability - Manaus, Brazil
Foundation for Ecological Security - Anand, India
Global Greengrants Fund - Boulder, CO, USA
Instituto Socioambiental - São Paulo, Brazil
Water for People - Greenwood Village, CO, USA
Recipients doing some environmental work:
Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples - Arcata, CA, USA
Fondo Lunaria Mujer - Bogotá, Colombia
CORO - Mumbai, India
Busara - Nairobi, Kenya
Global Development Incubator - Washington, DC, USA
Global Fund for Community Foundations - Johannesburg, South Africa
Innovations for Policy Action - Washington, DC
Are there other groups that should be on one of these lists? Let me know.