BY CHARLES ALDOUS
How British Philanthropy Fails to Build Independence
The British financier Sir Roland Franklin knew a thing or two about making money. His advice to his son Sir Martin was characteristically blunt: ‘Be generous in business, ruthless in charity’. It sounds counterintuitive until you realise it is exactly what Britain’s floundering charity sector needs to hear.
Britain’s charity sector finds itself caught between surging demand and shrinking resources, a predicament made worse by institutional failings. Grant applications have increased by 30-50%, according to the Association of Charitable Foundations, with some foundations reporting double the usual demand. Meanwhile, charities face £1 billion in annual funding cuts as inflation erodes government support in real terms. Major philanthropic stalwarts like Lankelly Chase and the Foyle Foundation are closing operations entirely, creating an even starker funding landscape.
Most perversely, charities continue to reward inefficiency over impact. Take Oxfam’s often-cited claim that 80 pence of every pound reaches frontline work – superficially impressive until one considers that this approach builds few lasting skills amongst recipients.
Likewise, the Church of England’s £48 million in charitable donations during 2019 exemplifies this problem perfectly: well-intentioned money that treats symptoms whilst studiously ignoring root causes. Overall, these charities have had little impact on eradicating the causes of poverty and homelessness.
As Lord Bird, the founder of the Big Issue tells me, charities need to think less about giving money and focus on creating skills, giving people a purpose and work ethic. With unemployment increasing to 4.7% in 2025 and poverty increasing, Bird has a point. Despite differences – Sir Martin Franklin is an Ivy League-educated billionaire financier with a transatlantic perspective, and Bird is a former rough sleeper turned founder of The Big Issue – they both argue passionately for injecting proper business rigour into charity management.
So, what does this look like? Consider the contrast between charity’s traditional approach to homelessness – soup kitchens, night shelters, and emergency handouts that treat symptoms whilst creating dependency – and Bird’s revolutionary model. The Big Issue does not simply feed rough sleepers; it employs them. Since 1991, vendors earn legitimate income through magazine sales, develop workplace skills, and follow a clear pathway from street to stable housing. It is effective: vendors progress from homelessness to employment in trackable numbers. As Bird puts it rather bluntly, ‘Traditional charity creates dependency, while social enterprise creates dignity.’
This is not mere idealism. Both Franklin and Ben & Jerry’s illustrate a key principle: charity should build capacity rather than hand out temporary relief. When COVID struck Antigua, Franklin did not organise food parcels or cash handouts like the Church or government. Instead, he bought every child a computer – a direct, measurable intervention that equipped an entire generation for the digital economy and allowed them to continue their education. Similarly, Ben & Jerry’s embedded social mission into their business structure from day one, showing that profit and purpose can reinforce each other. In both cases, the common thread is clear: these interventions solve underlying problems rather than merely treating symptoms, creating lasting change instead of comfortable dependency.
Ruthless charity in practice means applying the same bloody-minded discipline that built these entrepreneurs’ fortunes in the first place. Rather than measuring how much money flows through the system, measure what changes on the ground. Rather than funding another soup kitchen that will need the same funding next year, invest in programmes that make themselves redundant. Build systems that create independence, not comfortable dependency. As Franklin puts it, there should be ‘as little leakage on giving’ as possible – every pound should hit its target with business-like precision.
The policy implications are stark but necessary. Britain needs American-style tax incentives that reward strategic, long-term giving over feel-good gestures. We need mandatory impact reporting that goes beyond platitudes about ‘lives touched’ to demonstrate measurable outcomes. Most crucially, we need to channel funds towards social enterprises that generate ongoing returns rather than endless expenditure. The Big Issue proved this model works thirty years ago – it is high time the rest of our charitable establishment caught up with Sir Roland’s advice and started being ruthless where it really matters.
Charles Aldous is a policy writer with Young Voices UK. He is reading for an MPhil in Economic and Social History at Cambridge University. A first-class graduate of Durham University, Charles has completed internships in the charity sector and served as the president of the Durham Union Society.