In a RootsToFoods Capital Series interview, Randall Kempner, Executive Director of the Climate Philanthropy Catalyst Coalition, argued that philanthropic capital is uniquely positioned to act first—especially in the Amazon and Congo Basin, where protecting existing rainforests can deliver outsized climate benefits.
Kempner spoke with Ovidiu Bujorean, chief executive officer of OviBees Ventures, about the opening of Wave 2 in the RootsToFoods Capital Series. He described philanthropy as a structurally distinct form of capital rather than simply one component of blended finance. Because it is not primarily driven by financial returns, philanthropy can assume greater risks, support longer development timelines and build foundational systems that commercial actors often cannot justify funding on their own.
Kempner said the chronic underinvestment in climate action reflects a failure of priorities more than an inability to deploy capital. Climate-related work has never received more than roughly 2% of global philanthropic funding. Even at its recent peak, that leaves the overwhelming majority of charitable dollars directed elsewhere. When a group of U.S. foundations was asked why it did not support climate initiatives, 80% said climate was absent from its mission statement, despite climate change increasingly affecting nearly every cause those organizations fund.
“Philanthropy should be the first in — period. Because it has a unique role, it can take more risk, support pilots, build ecosystems, and recognize that its goal is completely social impact. Its job is to do the research, be the guarantor, and put its money in knowing it is at risk — so that others can follow.” — Randall Kempner, Executive Director, Climate Philanthropy Catalyst Coalition
According to Kempner, the largest opportunity lies not in individual grants but in the investment portfolios behind foundations. U.S. foundations are required to distribute only 5% of their endowments each year. A foundation with $50 million in assets therefore disburses approximately $2.5 million annually while the remaining $47.5 million stays invested, sometimes without advancing the organization’s charitable mission.
Kempner pointed to the Russell Family Foundation as a model. The mid-sized funder has aligned its grants and investments with its climate and environmental priorities and publishes its results annually, offering other foundations a practical example of mission-aligned portfolio management.
Many philanthropists nevertheless maintain a strict separation between grant-making and investing, reflecting the business models they used before entering philanthropy. Guarantee-focused organizations such as MCE Social Capital seek to bridge that divide by using philanthropic capital to unlock commercial investment, with the return of principal—not a market-rate gain—as the objective.
Kempner cited his work at the Aspen Network for Development Entrepreneurs, or ANDE, where he served for more than a decade. Philanthropic support helped build an entire field of organizations providing entrepreneurship services rather than financing a single institution. The effort supported unglamorous but essential infrastructure for small and growing businesses across emerging markets. Kempner identified a major milestone when ANDE’s Capacity Development Fund moved more than $1 million in philanthropic funding to member organizations and other groups serving those businesses.
Another example is the Gates Foundation’s decades-long campaign to eradicate polio. The initiative funded efforts that offered no financial return, including work to reach the last children in hard-to-access communities. It strengthened cold-chain systems, trained health workers, improved data infrastructure and coordinated governments, the World Health Organization, UNICEF and vaccine manufacturers. Kempner said the campaign demonstrated how philanthropy can address problems that markets alone are unlikely to solve.
Weakening policy support in the United States has left philanthropists with three options: continue fighting for withdrawn funding, shift their focus elsewhere or withdraw altogether. Kempner rejected retreat and warned against “green hushing,” in which funders continue their work while avoiding public discussion of climate action. Instead, he urged them to direct capital toward places where governments, businesses and communities are receptive, including Brazil, Indonesia, India and parts of Africa.
He also urged funders to prioritize preserving existing rainforests, mangroves and other natural carbon sinks over creating new ones. That strategy overlaps most directly with efforts to protect the Amazon and Congo Basin. As Kempner put it:
“Climate philanthropy at its best looks like driving capital to the most impactful climate solutions in a way that crowds in additional funders.”
