What happens when philanthropy clings to the familiar during moments of disruption? What could it look like for philanthropy to leverage disruption to advance structural change where it is needed most?

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic upended global food supply systems; farms lost workers, processing plants shut down, and border closures disrupted shipments. In the United States, funders largely focused on stabilizing access—supporting food banks, mutual aid groups, and mobile pantries, and offering small grants to local producers. These efforts were vital, but once the crisis eased, the food system largely snapped back to its earlier form, leaving inequities intact. Low-income communities continued to face unreliable access to affordable, healthy food, and small farmers remained in a precarious economic position while large suppliers quickly rebounded.

However, elsewhere in countries such as France, Italy, Argentina, and Spain, philanthropy—often working alongside policy makers and advocates—leveraged disruption to strengthen local food systems. Funders supported producer networks and advocacy groups, and helped expand programs that purchased food directly from nearby farms for schools and hospitals. These efforts introduced new practices that have lasted beyond the crisis, including stronger local markets and institutional procurement from community-based producers. Where these shifts took hold, food systems became more resilient and, in some cases, more equitable—providing local farmers with steadier markets and families with more reliable access to healthy, culturally relevant food.

This systemic response illustrates how philanthropic organizations and their partners can view disruption not as a detour but as an opportunity to create new norms and systems that promise a better future. Systemic disruptions driven by natural disasters, disease, conflict, and political instability are increasingly common. Yet funders often freeze in the face of uncertainty, and those that act quickly usually focus on filling gaps. Even funders committed to systems-level change tend to prioritize a return to “normal,” partly because philanthropy tends to view risk through the lens of compliance and reputation rather than missed opportunities. Yet choosing not to fund structural change for fear of missteps—whether through inaction or only temporarily filling a gap—is still an exercise of power, just one that maintains the status quo.0

Read the full article about philanthropy leveraging disruption by Jewlya Lynn and Clare Nolan at Stanford Social Innovation Review.