Read the full 2026 report
Free access to all five chapters, every benchmark table and all 26 verified sources.
Benchmark report · 2026
The State of
Corporate Social Impact 2026
Corporate social impact programs in 2026 face a widening gap between budget and proof. The latest full-year figures, for 2025, put median community investment at large companies at US$23.5 million, up 7.5% after inflation, though 52% of them cut spending. From 27 September 2026, the EU bans social impact claims you cannot prove. This report benchmarks your program on budget, measurement, data and compliance, with every number verified.
Published September 2026 · 33 verified sources · ~20-minute read
Median community investment · 2025
US$23.5m
+7.5% after inflation, yet 52% cut spending
Top quarter: US$67.0m
Impact measured
51%
of companies measure their impact, B4SI finds
all-time high
Reporting tools
87%
of sustainability reporters still use spreadsheets
AI more than doubled to 28%
Data from
CECP
|
B4SI
|
Giving USA
|
Admical
|
CAF
|
ZiviZ
|
ACCP
|
PwC
|
EY
|
EFRAG
|
Conference Board
|
Edelman
|
B Lab
TL;DR
Key findings
1
Median budgets rise, but most companies cut
Median community investment rose 7.5% after inflation to US$23.5 million in 2025.2 Yet 52% of companies cut their spending, so total spending across the group barely moved.2 The growth came from a small group of large programs.
2
Europe's totals hold up, but fewer companies give
In the UK, businesses gave £4.2 billion in 2024, yet 75% of them gave nothing at all.5 The Netherlands shows the same pattern: giving reached €1.68 billion, from fewer donors.6 France is the exception, with donor numbers rising instead of falling.4
3
Half of B4SI members measure impact
51% of B4SI network members now measure and report the impact of their community investment, an all-time high.9 CECP finds that 80% of large companies already collect outcome data.8 The remaining gap is analysis, not collection.
4
Fewer partners, more strategic spending
B4SI companies cut their number of community partners by 9% in two years.9 At the same time, 43% of them moved more spending into strategic giving.9 Across the network, 68% of contributions are now strategic.9
5
Spreadsheets still run reporting
Among companies preparing sustainability reports, 87% still use spreadsheets as a reporting tool.13 Finance teams feel it too: 96% hit problems with nonfinancial data.14 That matters once claims must be proven, as chapter 4 shows.
6
AI adoption arrives fast
Today 93% of social impact teams use AI, up from 73% in 2025 and 53% in 2024.11,15 In sustainability reporting, AI use rose from 11% to 28% of companies.13 The systems behind the data have moved far less, as chapter 3 shows.
7
Impact claims now need proof
From 27 September 2026, the EU bans vague environmental and social claims that lack proof.22 Meanwhile CSRD, the EU sustainability reporting law, now covers only companies with over 1,000 employees and €450 million turnover.17 Fewer companies must report, but claims to consumers now need evidence.
Chapter 1
Community investment budgets in 2026
In 2026, corporate giving in the United States sits at a record level. The latest full-year figures, for 2024, show US$44.40 billion, up 9.1% in current dollars and 6.0% after inflation.1 That is about 7.5% of all US charitable giving, roughly one dollar in every thirteen.1
Inside large companies, however, the picture is split, because the typical (median) program is growing while most individual programs are shrinking.2 Europe shows the same split, with large national totals but fewer companies doing the giving.5,6 This chapter looks at the United States first, then at Europe country by country, so you can place your own budget against the market you operate in.
US$23.5m
median community investment per large company, 2025
52%
of large companies cut community spending in 2025
0.77%
of pre-tax profit given, B4SI network average
€3.8bn
French corporate giving in 2023
The median grew because a few large programs grew fastest
CECP is a coalition of large companies that benchmarks their giving through Total Community Investment, a measure of cash, foundation and in-kind (non-cash) giving.2 Its headline figures come from a matched set of 139 companies that reported in both 2024 and 2025, so changes reflect real movement rather than a changing sample.2
In that set, the median rose 7.5% after inflation to US$23.5 million in 2025, from US$21.9 million in 2024.2 The top quartile, the best-funded quarter of companies, grew faster still, up 10.6% to US$67.0 million.2 Yet 52% of those same companies cut their community spending, so spending across the whole group actually fell 0.2%.2 The growth therefore comes from a small group of large programs, while most companies are giving less.
Programs now cost less to run
Programs also cost less to run. A separate CECP survey found that median investment rose 5% between 2022 and 2024, while management and program costs fell 22% over the same three years.8 More money is moving through leaner programs.
The B4SI network gives a second reference point for the size of a program. Its members invested US$2.6 billion in 2023/24 and reached 52.8 million people.3 Per member, that works out at US$20.1 million, or 0.76% of pre-tax profit and 0.14% of revenue.3 The 2024/25 figures of 0.77% of profit and 0.15% of revenue show that this share is stable, so you can use it as a benchmark for your own budget.9
Europe's totals hold, though fewer companies give
Europe tells a similar story to the United States: strong national totals resting on a narrower base of donors.4,5,6 The pattern differs by country, as the list below shows.
- France. Mécénat, the term for corporate giving that qualifies for a tax break, reached €3.8 billion in 2023, of which €3 billion was declared to the tax authority to claim the deduction.4 More than 170,000 companies gave, up from 110,000 in the previous survey, though small and mid-sized firms make up 97% of donors while giving only 33% of the total, and large enterprises give 39%.4 Company size also decides who gives at all, since 75% of large companies practice mécénat against 50% of mid-sized firms, and 74% of donor companies plan stable budgets over the next two years.4,12
- United Kingdom. Businesses gave an estimated £4.2 billion in 2024, of which the FTSE 100 gave £1.85 billion.5 Cash donations fell by about £300 million, and only 24 FTSE 100 companies gave at least 1% of pre-tax profit, down from 28 a year earlier.5 The base is narrow, too: 75% of British businesses gave no charitable support at all.5
- Netherlands. Businesses gave just under €1.68 billion in 2024, yet the share of them that donate fell to 44%, from 61% in 2020.6 The Dutch total rests on a narrower base of companies each year.
- Germany. Giving remains widespread: 88% of companies give money and 75% give goods or services in kind, while 63% offer paid staff time.7 What is changing is the structure, since only 6% of companies now run their engagement through a corporate foundation, down from 17% in 2018.7
Takeaway: you are in the majority if your budget is flat, since 52% of large companies cut spending even as the median rose. Fewer companies giving at all is common across Europe too. A budget under pressure in 2026 needs evidence, so the next chapters benchmark measurement, focus and proof.
Chapter 2
Operations benchmarks: measurement, partners, people
Chapter 1 covered the money. This chapter covers how programs are run in 2026: what they measure, how many partners they work with, and how much pressure the people running them are under. The benchmarks come from three sources.
- CECP. Company-level data for large corporate givers.
- B4SI. The global network view of community investment.
- ACCP (Association of Corporate Citizenship Professionals). Surveys the people who run community investment programs.11
Four numbers benchmark a 2026 program
51%
of B4SI members measure and report impact
80%
of CECP companies collect outputs and outcomes as data
68%
of B4SI contributions are now classed as strategic
64%
of corporate social impact teams report burnout in 2026
The core numbers
This table benchmarks eight core numbers for a community investment program. All B4SI members measure their giving through one shared method, so the figures below are directly comparable across companies.9
Burnout keeps rising even as AI adoption spreads
The pressure on teams is the same across corporate giving in 2026: more money and more scrutiny, handled by the same number of people. Corporate foundations moved 16% more money in 2025 with an unchanged median of four full-time staff.10 Across the wider set of large givers, median management and program costs fell 22% over three years, in a separate, larger CECP survey.8
Two thirds of teams, 66%, now report more pressure to measure their impact, and the strain shows in the burnout figure, which rose from 39% to 64% in one year.11
Leading programs choose fewer, deeper partnerships
B4SI members, for their part, are focusing their giving on fewer partners.9 A growing share of their spending, now 68% of all contributions, is classed as strategic, meaning planned, long-term giving on a few chosen social issues rather than one-off donations.9
Optimy customer: fewer partners, faster decisions
Optimy customer
Capital Power runs community investment across 28 facilities in North America on Optimy. "We went from 7 to 3 minutes per application," says Lindsay C., Community Specialist. That cut processing time by more than half, and every request now follows the same path.
Takeaway: this chapter points one way, toward fewer partners and outcomes collected as data rather than described in text. Neither change needs new headcount, even as burnout reached 64% in 2026 and two thirds of teams face more pressure to measure impact. Start with whichever gap is wider in your program.
Chapter 3
Data and AI: the reporting gap
The tools have not caught up with the scrutiny. Among companies preparing a sustainability report, under the EU's CSRD law or the global ISSB standard, 87% still use spreadsheets, almost unchanged from 88% a year earlier.13
Finance leaders describe the same weakness from the inside. Among them, 96% run into problems with the nonfinancial data their organization relies on, meaning figures such as impact, emissions or workforce numbers.14 Only 32% have systems advanced enough to manage and analyze that data, while 39% say limited IT resources hold them back.14
The tooling is improving but started small, with dedicated sustainability software up from 23% to 37% of companies in a year.13 AI use in reporting moved the same way, from 11% to 28%.13 Neither has displaced the spreadsheet, which is why the data problem outlasts the new tools.
Four numbers show the reporting gap
87%
of sustainability reporters still rely on spreadsheets
96%
of finance leaders hit problems with nonfinancial data
37%
now use dedicated sustainability software, up from 23%
30%
of CSRD reporters clearly label their own datapoints
Social impact teams adopted AI faster than their systems did
In 2025, 73% of corporate social impact teams used AI tools in some way, up from 53% in 2024.15 Data analysis and aggregation was the fastest-growing use, reaching 37% of teams from 14% a year earlier.15 At the same time, 43% had adopted, or were exploring, a new technology platform for their programs.15
By 2026, AI adoption had reached 93%, as chapter 2 showed.11 In practice, the analysis tools arrived before the data they depend on, so the quality of that data now decides how far AI can be trusted.
The first CSRD reports show unlabeled, inconsistent data
The first wave of CSRD reports shows why data quality matters. EFRAG, the body that drafts the EU's reporting standards, studied the first 656 companies to publish, whose statements ran from about 25 to 440 pages and averaged 115 pages.16 In a reviewed subset, only about 30% of companies clearly labeled their own entity-specific datapoints, meaning figures a company defines itself rather than ones the standard requires.16
The rest presented them as if they were standard disclosures under ESRS, the European Sustainability Reporting Standards that set the detailed rules under CSRD.16 Long reports built on spreadsheets and unlabeled data are a weak base for the public claims that, as the next chapter shows, must now be proven.
Takeaway: AI adoption is no longer the gap, since most teams already use it. The gap is data infrastructure: 87% of reporters still use spreadsheets, and 96% of finance leaders hit problems with nonfinancial data. So keep one central, controlled data source and let your impact report and sustainability statement both draw from it.
Chapter 4
What changes in 2026: rules, trust and money
In 2026, two forces reshape how you prove social impact. Mandatory sustainability reporting now covers far fewer companies, while the claims you make to consumers are policed more tightly than before. The timeline below sets out the five dates that matter for a community investment program.
Regulators are not the only audience watching. Executives split sharply by region on how much priority to give these issues, while employees and reputation hold steady regardless of the political weather. This chapter covers both: the rules that now bind your claims, and the stakeholders who judge them.
80%
of companies exempted from CSRD by the Omnibus
38.4%
of North American CEOs call sustainability a low priority
16%
US support for environmental and social resolutions, 2025
78%
trust their own employer most, per Edelman
Fewer reporters, stricter claims
Voluntary standards fill the gap CSRD left behind
Companies pushed out of CSRD are not out of reporting altogether. One option is the VSME, a voluntary reporting standard for small and mid-sized companies. An EFRAG survey of 282 respondents, reported by Born2Invest, found that 95% knew about the Commission's VSME recommendation and 43% had fully adopted it.20 Among adopters, 25% named better answers to bank and investor information requests as a key driver.20
The UK, meanwhile, already requires a related disclosure under company law. Any company that must produce a strategic report has to publish a section 172(1) statement as well, unless it qualifies for the medium-sized companies regime.26 That statement covers the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment.26
The United States pulls back from mandatory disclosure
The United States is moving the other way, pulling back from mandatory climate and sustainability disclosure on three fronts.23,24
- SEC climate rules. In May 2026, the SEC (the US securities regulator) proposed to withdraw its 2024 climate disclosure rules, having already stopped defending them in court in March 2025.23
- California SB 261. A federal court paused this climate-risk law in November 2025.24
- California SB 253. The state's separate emissions-reporting law survived, though the regulator pushed back its first deadline.24
The retreat reaches beyond climate rules. In a January 2025 survey of 1,000 US companies with DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) programs, one in eight planned to cut or end them during 2025.25 For a program active in both regions, the result is two sets of expectations. Mandatory disclosure is lighter in the US, where some companies are also scaling back DEI by choice, while Europe asks for stricter proof of claims.
Executives split by region, while employees hold steady
The gap between North America and Europe is wide: 38.4% of North American CEOs say environmental sustainability is not a priority in 2026, compared with 13.8% in Europe.27 On social issues the pattern repeats, with 14.3% of North American CEOs calling them not a priority versus 5.8% in Europe.27 Globally the figure is 8.4%, so more than nine in ten CEOs worldwide still keep social issues on their agenda.27
Investors have cooled as well. In the US, support for environmental and social shareholder resolutions, the proposals investors vote on at annual meetings, fell to about 16% in 2025.30 That is roughly half the level of three years earlier.30 Shareholder pressure has eased, then, just as European rules on proving claims have tightened.
Employees still reward purpose, and so does reputation
While executives debate, employees still place their highest trust in their own employer. The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer puts people's own employer at the top of its trust ranking, at 78%.33 That places the employer 14 points ahead of business overall and 25 points ahead of government, a level of trust a social impact program then has to live up to.33
Porter Novelli measures how closely a company's reputation tracks its purpose, meaning its reason for existing beyond profit.32 In 2025 that correlation reached 85%, the largest one-year rise in eight years, so reputation and purpose are now closely linked.32 Purpose matters to younger employees directly: in Switzerland, 95% of Gen Z and 97% of Millennials say purpose matters to their job satisfaction and well-being.31
Purpose metrics are moving from words to the board report
Purpose is becoming part of how companies are managed. Among the large companies CECP surveys, 87% have a formal purpose statement.8 More than 90% use it to guide social investment and business decisions, while 67% have metrics tying business practice to purpose.8
Companies with mature purpose metrics also report stronger financial results: median pre-tax profit rose 31% between 2023 and 2024, against 3% for companies without them.8 The two move together in CECP's data, which does not show that one causes the other.
More companies are choosing third-party verification
Certified B Corporations, companies independently checked for their social and environmental performance, are also growing in number. At the end of 2024, 9,368 companies held the certification, up 16% after 1,317 joined that year.28 By June 2026 the community had passed 10,800 companies, spread across 102 countries and 163 industries.29
Between them, those companies employ over one million people.29 So while some executives step back from ESG language (environmental, social and governance), more companies are choosing to have their impact verified by a third party.
Takeaway: Fewer companies must report under CSRD, but every consumer claim needs proof from September 2026. Your employees still trust you most, and purpose tracks reputation, so keep the programs and the data behind them. Drop contested language, not the evidence.
Chapter 5
Benchmark yourself
This table asks one question across nine rows: is your program better measured, better focused and better proven than the sector? Every row uses data from the chapters above. Score one point where you match or beat the benchmark, and one point where you can answer yes to the question in the row. Then read the band below that matches your score.
Nine benchmarks separate leaders from laggards
- 7-9. You match or beat the sector on nearly every dimension, so the next step is to publish your outcomes and your method where peers and regulators can see them.
- 4-6. You have a solid core. Fix the two easiest gaps first: reducing your partner list is a decision, and adding outcome fields to your intake forms turns text into data from the next cycle.
- 0-3. Start with a claims audit: list every public impact statement and, before 27 September 2026, attach evidence to each one or remove it. Then build an intake process that collects that evidence every time, so you are not repeating the audit by hand next year.
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
How much do large companies spend on community investment?
What share of companies measure the impact of their community investment?
Do CSR teams still report on spreadsheets?
Which companies still have to report under CSRD after the Omnibus?
Are unsubstantiated social impact claims regulated in the EU?
Is corporate purpose losing ground with stakeholders?
From activity to evidence, with Optimy
Optimy is one platform for community investment requests, selection, partner reporting and impact data. Companies, utilities and foundations use it to run fewer, deeper partnerships and to prove their outcomes to the board and the auditor.
Methodology & sources
Every statistic in this report comes from the source named below, and we re-verified each one in September 2026, before publication. Where the data year differs from the publication year, we say so, and figures are reported exactly as published, with no estimates and nothing filled in between data points. One figure comes from secondary reporting of a primary survey, the EFRAG VSME survey via Born2Invest, and the text says so inline. The SEC regulatory update is cited directly from the Commission's own press release. Where a survey covers one geography or sample, the text says so, and charts use the cited figures only.
- Giving USA Foundation / IU Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Giving USA 2025 (2024 data) · givingusa.org/giving-usa-2025-u-s-charitable-giving-grew-to-592-50-billion-in-2024-lifted-by-stock-market-gains/
- CECP, Giving in Numbers: 2026 Edition press release (2025 data, matched set of 139 companies) · www.3blmedia.com/news/giving-numbersr-2026-edition-data-reveals-stark-divide-corporate-giving
- B4SI (Business for Societal Impact), Annual Review 2024 (2023/24 benchmark year) · b4si.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/B4SI-Annual-review-2024.pdf
- Admical, Baromètre du mécénat d'entreprise 2024 (2023 tax data; IFOP survey) · admical.org/contenu/barometre-du-mecenat-dentreprise-2024
- Charities Aid Foundation, Corporate Giving Report 2025 (2024 data), via UK Fundraising · fundraising.co.uk/2025/09/17/most-british-businesses-do-nothing-to-support-charities-reports-caf/
- VU Amsterdam Centre for Philanthropic Studies, Geven in Nederland 2026 (2024 data), via Fondsenwerving.nl · www.fondsenwerving.nl/verdieping/artikel/2026/06/26/geven-in-nederland-2026-waarde-filantropie-bijna-5-5-miljard-euro-inkomsten-uit-nalaten-stijgen-gestaag
- Stifterverband / ZiviZ, Monitor Unternehmensengagement 2025 (4,431 companies; fieldwork Nov-Dec 2024) · www.ziviz.de/sites/ziv/files/2025-06/monitor_unternehmensengagement_2025.pdf
- CECP, Giving in Numbers: 2025 Edition (2024 data, 189 companies), via Yahoo Finance · finance.yahoo.com/news/giving-numbers-tm-2025-edition-133000882.html
- B4SI (Business for Societal Impact), Annual Review 2025 (2024/25 benchmark year) · b4si.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Business-for-Societal-Impact-B4SI-Annual-review-2025.pdf
- CECP, corporate foundations research release (2025 data) · www.3blmedia.com/news/new-cecp-research-corporate-foundations-are-managing-more-money-without-more-staff
- Association of Corporate Citizenship Professionals, 2026 CSR Insights Report (120 companies, US$1 billion in community investment), via ESG Dive · www.esgdive.com/news/corporate-social-responsibility-teams-facing-increased-pressure-accp/825319/
- Admical / French Ministry of Sports, Baromètre du mécénat d'entreprise 2024 key figures · www.sports.gouv.fr/les-chiffres-du-barometre-du-mecenat-d-entreprise-en-france-edition-2024-3154
- PwC, Global Sustainability Reporting Survey 2025, via ESG Today · www.esgtoday.com/most-companies-say-pressure-for-sustainability-reporting-increasing-despite-regulatory-pullback-pwc-survey/
- EY, 2024 Global Corporate Reporting Survey · www.ey.com/en_gl/insights/financial-accounting-advisory-services/corporate-reporting-survey
- Association of Corporate Citizenship Professionals, 6th Annual CSR Insights Report (2025) · accp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-6th-Annual-CSR-Insights-Report.pdf
- EFRAG, State of Play 2025: Implementation of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (FY2024 reports; published July 2025) · www.efrag.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2025-07/EFRAG_State%20of%20Play%202025%20Report_0.pdf
- Council of the European Union, press release on the adoption of Omnibus I (24 February 2026) · www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/02/24/council-signs-off-simplification-of-sustainability-reporting-and-due-diligence-requirements-to-boost-eu-competitiveness/
- ESG Today, European Commission estimate of companies exempted by the Omnibus thresholds (2025) · www.esgtoday.com/eu-to-exempt-80-of-companies-from-csrd-sustainability-reporting-requirements/
- Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, CSDDD after Omnibus I (2026) · www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/csddd-omnibus/
- EFRAG VSME Market Acceptance Survey (282 respondents, December 2025), via Born2Invest · born2invest.com/articles/vsme-challenge-for-european-smes/
- Latham & Watkins, European Commission's intention to withdraw the Green Claims Directive proposal (2025) · www.lw.com/en/insights/european-commission-announces-intention-to-withdraw-eu-green-claims-directive-proposal
- Carbon Trust, the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive explained (2026) · www.carbontrust.com/news-and-insights/insights/ecgt-directive-explained-what-organisations-who-sell-in-europe-should-know-and-do
- US Securities and Exchange Commission, press release 2026-49 on the proposed rescission of the climate disclosure rules · www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-49-sec-proposes-rescission-climate-related-disclosure-rules
- Mayer Brown, California climate disclosure laws: CARB rulemaking and the reset 2026 deadline (August 2026) · www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2026/08/california-climate-disclosure-laws-carb-finalizes-its-initial-rulemaking-resets-the-2026-deadline-and-previews-the-2027-framework
- ESG Dive, Resume.org survey of 1,000 US companies on DEI programs (January 2025) · www.esgdive.com/news/companies-to-weaken-dei-commitments-in-2025/738608/
- ICAEW, the section 172(1) statement under the UK Companies Act 2006 · www.icaew.com/technical/corporate-reporting/section-172-1-statement
- The Conference Board, CEO and C-Suite ESG Priorities for 2026, via Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance · corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2026/02/13/ceo-and-c-suite-esg-priorities-for-2026/
- B Lab US & Canada, 2024 Annual Report summary · usca.bcorporation.net/a-year-of-impact-in-motion-b-labs-2024-annual-report-summary/
- B Lab Europe, press release on certification under the new global standards (June 2026) · bcorporation.eu/press_release/companies-achieve-b-corp-certification-under-new-global-standards/
- Inrate, US ESG backlash and its impact on European-aligned data (2025) · inrate.com/blogs/us-esg-backlash-impact-on-european-aligned-data/
- Deloitte Switzerland, 2026 Gen Z and Millennial Survey · www.deloitte.com/ch/en/issues/work/genz-millennial-survey.html
- Porter Novelli, 2025 Reputation Ranking: Purpose Premium Report · porternovelli.com/news/the-2025-porter-novelli-reputation-ranking-purpose-premium-report/
- Edelman, 2026 Trust Barometer, via PR Newswire · www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/2026-edelman-trust-barometer-reveals-trust-is-in-peril-as-society-slides-from-grievance-into-insularity-302664064.html
About Optimy
Optimy is the platform that companies, utilities and foundations use to run their social impact programs, covering community investment, grants, sponsorship and volunteering from application to reporting. The organization featured in chapter 2, Capital Power, is an Optimy customer, and its figures and quote come from the published Optimy customer story. optimy.com
© 2026 Optimy · You may quote this report with attribution and a link to the source page. Please credit it as "Optimy, The State of Corporate Social Impact 2026".