IS IT TIME TO REFRESH YOUR CORPORATE GIVING STRATEGY?
In our work with corporate foundations and giving programs, we hear variations of the same questions:
Do our funding priorities still reflect where the field is today, and more importantly, where it is headed?
Are we being as responsive as we can be to the communities we're trying to serve, and to the changes happening around them?
Our internal business objectives have shifted. Do our philanthropic investments still support them, and if not, should we adjust, or is it better to stay the course?
How do we build or deepen our credibility in the issue area we've committed to? How do we engage more meaningfully with key stakeholders?
These are good questions, and honestly, they're the ones we get most excited about! They come from leaders who are in close relationship with their grantees, recognize changes and challenges in the field, and show a commitment to responsive and adaptive grantmaking.
They know that strategy that isn't periodically examined is strategy that can quietly lose its relevance and impact -- and that the best time to course correct is before it becomes strictly necessary.
WHAT A STRATEGIC REFRESH INVOLVES
A strategic refresh is a time to take stock, reflect, and learn. It's a structured, yet iterative and dynamic process grounded in a few core principles that guide everything that follows:
We draw on proven strengths — what's been built is meaningful, and it is rarely advantageous to tear it down and start over.
We honor existing partnerships — relationships that represent years of trust and can't be reconstructed from scratch.
We connect the dots — bringing coherence and narrative to work that is stronger than it may have appeared.
We create space for innovation — making room for new approaches that the current structure may not accommodate.
We keep community at the center — because the most effective corporate giving has always reflected the systems and people it's meant to serve.
Know What You Have. Then Ask Hard Questions.
It begins internally, reviewing key documents and reports, including grantee impact data and learning and evaluation metrics, to gain a deeper understanding of the impact of our client's philanthropic portfolio.
Conversations with foundation and company leaders go deeper, surfacing how well current strategies are serving both community and the business, where tensions exist between the two, and how the program needs to evolve to stay responsive and relevant.
These conversations go beyond the mechanics of grantmaking. They get at questions that don't always surface in the day-to-day: What assumptions have we been making about the communities we serve? Where has the portfolio drifted from its original intent? What are we funding out of habit versus strategy? How well does the giving program reflect the company's values, support its reputation, and strengthen relationships with key stakeholders?
The answers to these questions provide incredible insight into how the company can be more responsive and adaptive in its community engagement — and where its philanthropic portfolio has the greatest opportunity to deepen its impact.
Go to the Source. Then Lean Into Listening.
The internal work expands to include external perspectives, and this is often where the most candid and generative insights emerge. Conversations with grantees and community partners go beyond a simple check-in. We ask what's working and what could be stronger, what about the current model sets them up for success and what slows them down, where they feel most and least supported, and what they wish the program understood better about the realities of their work.
We ask about their greatest achievements and their honest failures, and whether the program is truly moving resources closer to community. And we ask what they would change if they could, and what the program should carry forward into its next phase. These are not easy questions, and they require real trust to answer honestly. Building that trust, and honoring it by letting the answers actually shape the strategy, is at the heart of how we work.
At the same time, we conduct a landscape scan, looking beyond the program's own portfolio to identify emerging trends, new models, and promising collaborations taking shape in the field. We assess where gaps exist and where resources are thin, and we look specifically for the connective tissue that could be strengthened, particularly the places where a more intentional investment strategy could link people, organizations, and ideas that aren't yet in conversation with each other.
Interpret the Findings. Then Make Meaning.
From there, we begin weaving together the many threads that emerged -- the organizational strengths and tensions surfaced internally, the lived experience of those doing the work in community, and the opportunities and gaps identified in the broader field. Recommendations are grounded in the through line that emerges across all of it.
The output isn't just a strategic framework, it's a roadmap that makes the strategy usable in practice. That might mean clearer criteria for what the program will and won't fund, a more deliberate geographic or demographic focus, a revised theory of change, or a framework for how grantee relationships are structured and sustained. It also provides the operational tools that make execution possible: refined grantmaking criteria, updated RFP language, and metrics that clearly reflect current program goals.
A refresh is not about starting over. It's about leaning into what's already working by making it more coherent, more current, and more connected -- to the company's evolving priorities, the communities being served, and the outcomes that matter most.
WHAT CHANGE LOOKS LIKE
Over the past five years, we've guided corporate foundations and giving programs through this process across a range of issue areas. The industries vary, the geographies vary, the portfolios vary, but the structure of how we approach the work is consistent, even as the outcomes look different for every client.
We've seen corporate giving programs narrow their focus areas deliberately, choosing to go deeper on fewer issues rather than spread resources thin across many.
We've seen programs shift to larger, fewer grants, concentrating investments in the markets where the company operates and where relationships run deep.
We've seen funders develop community-led grantmaking initiatives that intentionally shift decision-making power to those with the greatest knowledge -- the communities themselves.
And we've seen organizations become more intentional about how they show up beyond the grant check: building learning communities, convening grantees for networking and exchange, and lifting up their work at funder tables in ways that make the whole portfolio stronger over time.
None of these outcomes were predetermined. They emerged from the process, and from from honest reflection, genuine stakeholder engagement, and a willingness to let the findings lead.
If the questions at the top of this piece sound familiar, it may be time. Reach out if you would like to talk about a strategic refresh.
