Rien van Gendt is a globally renowned expert in European and U.S. philanthropy, who has worked across sectors, including in government, academia, and philanthropy. After successful tenures at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy, and the Bernard van Leer Foundation, Rien created his own company, Van Gendt Philanthropy Services, where he has served as director for nearly 18 years. He is the author of the recently published book, “Philanthropy Back to the Drawing Board,” and he has served on Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA) Inc. Board of Directors for nearly nine years. We sat down with Rien to discuss his career, philanthropy’s future, and the advice he has for the NextGen leadership beginning careers in philanthropy today.  

RPA: You are a recognized leader in European philanthropy who has also served as a powerful bridge between U.S. and European foundations. What continue to be the biggest differences between European and U.S.-based philanthropy, and what can the two sectors still learn from each other?  

Rien: Before answering that question, let me say how important it is to see what the U.S. and Europe can do in common. Years ago, I was the chair of the International Committee of the European Foundation Centre (now Philea) and, at the same time, the chair of the International Committee in the U.S. of the Council on Foundations. That was at the time when the U.S. introduced the Patriot Act and became, in its actions, far more domestic and inward-looking. We decided to make up for what governments were not doing and to cooperate in the time of the Patriot Act. So we – U.S. foundations and European foundations – started working together in Latin America and southern Africa.  

It felt very strange after the fall of the Berlin Wall, that it was not European foundations that came in first to boost to civil society. It was American foundations. The craft of grantmaking is further advanced in the U.S. The whole discussion about proxy voting and shareholder engagements in the U.S. started much before it started in Europe. The U.S. had already published works on impact investing and scaling up before these became issues in Europe. On the other hand, Europe has so many different cultures and countries that you realize there is not one solution for a problem. You always think in terms of the cultural context.  

One last thing: U.S. philanthropy is bolder. European foundations are more bureaucratized. They nibble on the edges. In the U.S., you are able to move the needle in a better way. 

RPA: In your book, “Philanthropy Back to the Drawing Board,” you’re fairly critical of the sector’s current practices. I’m curious, specifically, to hear more about your thoughts on the legitimacy of philanthropy. Why is the philanthropic sector experiencing a crisis of legitimacy and what can it do to address it?   

Rien: There is a philanthropy paradox. On the one hand, philanthropy becomes more visible, more transparent. There is a huge growth, it is effective, it is seen as a serious partner. But at the same time, you see distrust and criticism. You could say, “Of course, but we live in an era where there is criticism about everything.” But is this criticism on philanthropy or is it a criticism on philanthropists? I believe the latter is the case. If we look at Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos, it begs the question: How is that money earned? What are the disparities in a society? What about the democratic decision-making? By the way, I don’t think there ought to be democratic decision-making in philanthropy, because the advantage of the sector is that you don’t have that same kind of accountability to parliaments, for instance, and that you have a large degree of freedom. That allows you to play the wild card and to take risks.  

At the van Leer Foundation, when we brought the company to the stock exchange, we doubled our assets and our spending, and we had the serious discussion of are we becoming too big? Can we still take that same risk profile in terms of our spending if we double our size? The criticism is often on “mega philanthropy.” Do we practice what we preach? Do we take those risks, or are we still playing on the safe side? Very often, you end up with the darling NGOs of this world that are already overfunded. We do that because we want to play safe. We don’t want to take risks.  

Another question for philanthropy is, “Do we have a finger on the pulse of society?” Many foundations are proactive in that they feel they know what the problems are, and they will say, “Don’t call us. We will call you, and then we will invite you to submit a proposal.” After Brexit, a number of U.K. foundations asked me, “What did we miss? Why didn’t we see this coming?” It’s because philanthropy did not have a finger on the pulse of society.   

Looking at legitimacy and the license to operate, there are a lot of things that have to be demystified, and we have to show what our added value is. There is criticism, and rightly so. We have to push that envelope a bit. 

RPA: 2024 has been the biggest year of elections with more than 60 countries seeing almost half of the world’s population voting. Not all results were encouraging, and many revealed growing socioeconomic tensions and divides that threaten the tensile strength of societies. What role does philanthropy have to help societies address the challenges we are facing today in supporting the most vulnerable communities? Do you think philanthropy is living up to its promise and potential?  

Rien: We must look at the polycrisis and the fact that there are so many interrelated challenges. That requires philanthropy, of course, to take a different approach. If you just focus on, for instance, food security, there may be collateral negative effects on climate. You ought to look at it in a more holistic approach. There needs to be a more integrated, long-term approach to these crises. But are the tools of philanthropy in sync with what is required to do that? We claim we are for systems change, but we haven’t revised our tools. You can’t have systems change if you do it solo. We need to reach out to other foundations, to the corporate sector, to governments, and especially to the people most affected.  

How do you engage the wider society in what you do? The corporate sector has management and a supervisory board, but it also has shareholders, and there is a disciplinary effect that shareholders can have on a company. What is the equivalent for shareholders in philanthropy? Those are the people that are not the grantees, but, rather, the people who are affected. How does the social return reach them? Additionally, how do you bring in next generations? They are the ones who will bear the fruit or the negative side effects of what we do.  

RPA: You’ve served on the board of RPA Inc. for nearly nine years. A lot has changed in the world since then. What are you most proud of during your tenure at RPA? Where do you think RPA should go next? 

Rien: From my time at the van Leer Foundation and working in 40 different countries, I have a lot of international experience. Together with Valerie Rockefeller, we started the International Committee. What I’ve always liked about RPA is that you are not just doing advisory services. You have thought leadership that you distill from the advisory work. You distill things that are not theoretical knowledge but, rather, experiential knowledge. If I look back at the Theory of the Foundations, scaling up, or proxy voting, there are so many fantastic things that RPA did. 

The fact that RPA is now leading the charge in establishing a collaborative on lead poisoning is fantastic. That combination of professional work and thought leadership has always been the RPA way. I’m pleased I could be part of that. 

RPA: Is there anything about government work you would like to see the philanthropic community adopt in its approaches (or vice versa)? 

Rien: Somehow, when I started in philanthropy in 1988 as the director of the Bernard van Leer Foundation, things were falling into place with respect to government. Van Leer was a thoughtful foundation, and we were thinking of scaling up our experiences. Having had that experience in government and knowing how government functions, I knew you should not and cannot avoid government. That was useful in the same way my corporate sector experience was important because in the corporate sector, you know what it is to fail and you learn from your mistakes. That is important in philanthropy because you don’t just sign this check; the check is not an end product, but it is the beginning of a strategy. You start thinking about long-term strategy.  

Now, what did I miss in philanthropy? With my position in the government, I was in touch with the greatest thought leaders of the world. In government, you take time to think and to go to the root causes, while in philanthropy, you often act with your gut. You think you know what the problem is, but you don’t take enough time to go much deeper, and I really appreciated that in government. Having said that, with regard to COVID 19, philanthropy has been more agile than government. We were able to react more swiftly than government.  

RPA: Knowing what you do now, what professional advice would you give early-career-age Rien van Gendt or professionals now entering the philanthropic sector?  

Rien: I entered the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris after a short career in academia, and I loved it. But I always realized the advantage of the OECD was that I could leave the OECD and take my experience with me at the next step. I often tell people that come into the foundation world, “Don’t see that as a career. Suck up that experience and use it in your next step. Then, later on, you can come back to the foundation world. But don’t stay there forever. It is not good for you, and it is not good for the foundation.” 

Learn to be humble. Very often, program specialists see themselves as the changemaker, while, for me, the real changemakers are the people who work on the ground. You can be a changemaker. That is, if you take that on-the-ground experience and you distill out of that the lessons learned, and bring that in to change policy. Then, you are the changemaker. Otherwise, be a bit humble and realize the real change is being done by the people on the ground.  

Listen to people. Avoid cultural arrogance. Don’t think you have all the wisdom. Realize the world around you is often different. 

Back to News