By Suvodeep Saha from Sattva and Milet Aquino from the Association of Foundations
A nonprofit staff member spends a day in the field, speaking with community members about improved access to clean water. The next day, they are in a boardroom, reporting to donors on the same work – now described through entirely different terms and metrics. This constant shift between worlds is a familiar reality for nonprofits and philanthropic actors alike: making sense of what is happening on the ground, and translating it into language, metrics, and meaning that resonate with those who support the work. While these scenarios are contrasting, both are equally legitimate ways of making sense of the same work – one is grounded in lived experience, the other in systems of accountability and support.
Across the sector, terms like ‘SDGs’ (Sustainable Development Goals), ‘ESG’ (Environmental, Social, and Governance), and ‘systems change’ are widely used to structure strategy, define impact, and report progress. But on the ground, the same work is expressed in everyday language – through stories of cleaner water, safer classrooms, steadier incomes, or stronger communities. Bridging these two ways of speaking is not just a matter of communication; it shapes how impact is understood, valued, and ultimately supported.
This creates a central tension between the pursuit of legitimacy and the language used to communicate it: the more philanthropy relies on a universal, technical vocabulary to align globally, the greater the risk of creating distance locally – making efforts feel less accessible to the very people they aim to serve. At its core, this is a question of language and the legitimacy it confers.
The language of giving
If language shapes how philanthropy is understood, and who it feels accessible to, it is worth asking a more fundamental question: what do we mean by philanthropy?
Derived from the Greek philanthrōpia, or ‘love of humanity’, the concept has evolved significantly over time. As philanthropy has become increasingly institutionalised and data-driven, the language used to describe and justify it has also evolved. Today, it is often defined, such as by the Charities Aid Foundation, as promoting the welfare of others, typically through financial contributions to social causes. Yet this reflects only one expression of giving.
Across much of the Asia-Pacific, philanthropy is not limited to formal institutions or financial transactions. It is embedded in cultural norms, community relationships, and everyday practices expressed through mutual aid, faith-based giving, family support, and collective responsibility. Traditions such as Bayanihan (communal unity) in the Philippines or Seva (selfless service) in India reflect deeply rooted systems of care and reciprocity. These may not always be labelled as ‘philanthropy’, but they represent equally intentional and meaningful forms of giving.
This diversity highlights an important reality: philanthropy is not a fixed concept but is continuously shaped by context, culture, and changing societal needs. While it is important for organisations to engage with the language of global philanthropy, it is equally important to remain fluent in the language of communities and everyday giving.
Reframing the role of PSOs
In this context, philanthropy support organisations (PSOs) play a critical role not only in strengthening systems of giving but also in shaping how philanthropy itself is understood.
Their work increasingly involves developing a more nuanced and contextually grounded understanding of philanthropy: what it looks like in practice, how it is expressed across regions, and how global frameworks can meaningfully align with local realities. In practice, this positions PSOs as translators – bridging the structured language of global philanthropy with the lived realities of communities.
This requires more than technical expertise; it requires the ability to interpret, translate, and, where necessary, challenge dominant narratives. The SDGs, for example, rely on standardised global language and indicators to define progress across countries. PSOs play a key role in translating these global frameworks into local realities – translating goals like ‘ending poverty’ into questions about whether families can meet their daily needs, or ‘quality education’ into whether children are learning in classrooms that are safe, supported, and accessible.
The myth of professional jargon
A common assumption in global philanthropy is that technical language signals credibility. However, in practice, overly complex or imported terminology can create barriers rather than build trust.
For PSOs working closely with communities, clarity often proves more effective than complexity. Organisations facilitating grassroots programmes frequently find that replacing abstract terms with locally understood language leads to stronger engagement and accountability – whether in community meetings, programme design discussions, or feedback processes. For example, conversations on climate change become more meaningful when linked to everyday experiences, such as fisherfolk communities noticing fewer fish in coastal areas or families observing floods reaching higher levels in their homes.
Using clear, accessible language does not diminish sophistication. It demonstrates a deeper understanding of how to communicate ideas across contexts. This positions PSOs not just as translators between global and local systems, but as active contributors in shaping the language of philanthropy itself.
Take the term ‘ecosystem’, for example. In global discourse, it often refers to a network of institutions, such as funders, policymakers, and organisations. In many parts of the Asia-Pacific, however, an ecosystem is experienced as a web of relationships built on trust, shared history, and interdependence between communities, local institutions, and informal networks.
For example, a PSO facilitating a poverty-focused collaborative may describe the ‘ecosystem of poverty’ to donors as a multidimensional issue shaped by health, education, livelihood, and the environment. But when engaging communities, the same idea may be explained as the interconnected roots of the everyday challenges families experience. In practice, tools such as a problem tree can help make the idea of an ecosystem more tangible by showing how different issues are linked and reinforce one another.
The role of PSOs, then, is twofold:
- to make global concepts meaningful in local contexts, and
- to ensure that local realities inform and reshape global narratives.
This is not a one-way translation process, but a dynamic exchange.
Making language work in practice
These shifts become visible in how commonly used technical terms are adapted in practice. For example, some of the language shifts emerging through this work include:
- From ‘KPIs (Key Performance Indicators)’ to ‘signs of progress’: Focusing on visible changes that communities themselves recognise and can use to hold programmes accountable.
- From ‘theory of change’ to ‘the roadmap’: A simplified articulation of how and why specific actions are expected to lead to outcomes, making interventions easier to communicate and test.
- From ‘due diligence’ to ‘getting to know each other’: Framing compliance processes as opportunities to build trust, while maintaining rigour and accountability.
These shifts are not merely semantic; they influence how programmes are understood, implemented, and sustained.
Bridging and shaping narratives
Across the Asia-Pacific, there is growing recognition that effective philanthropy depends on aligning global intent with local meaning. Language plays a critical role in enabling this alignment.
Initiatives such as the WINGS Asia-Pacific Working Group are beginning to reflect this in practice by creating spaces where regional perspectives shape broader conversations on philanthropy, rather than simply adapting to them. Initial engagements within the group have already sparked conversations about different forms of giving, including during a recent brown-bag session on How India Gives by the Centre for Social Impact and Philanthropy.
Ultimately, strengthening philanthropy in the Asia-Pacific is not about adopting a more sophisticated vocabulary, but about building a shared understanding. For PSOs, this implies a clear shift:
- from using language to align with global expectations;
- to using language as a tool to build local trust and mutual understanding.
It also requires recognising that global and regional perspectives are not hierarchical, but complementary. When effectively aligned, they reinforce each other – combining resources with local context and lived insight to create more grounded and responsive systems of giving.
Language, in this sense, is not just a means of communication. It is a mechanism of legitimacy. And how it is used will shape who philanthropy ultimately serves, and who it leaves behind. For PSOs, this implies a dual responsibility: to translate across different audiences while remaining critical and reflective about the words they choose and the narratives they reinforce.