A core conclusion was that sustainability depends on ecosystem infrastructure rather than the strength of individual organisations alone.
Participants emphasised:
- The importance of long-term, flexible funding
- Protecting and strengthening intermediaries
- Reducing transaction costs for frontline organisations
- Building organisational and financial capability on movement terms
Participants discussed the risk of relying on short-term project-based grants that create cycles of uncertainty. Long-term, flexible funding was seen as foundational for endurance. At the same time, there was appetite to explore additional tools that can support resilience where appropriate, including low-interest or recoverable capital, guarantees, and approaches that help organisations build assets.
Participants stressed that approaches must not place the burden on movements to fit a financial system that was not designed for them. In some contexts, grant funding and ecosystem building are not a precursor to investment, they are the strategy. Where revenue-generating models are relevant, participants emphasised they should build on existing organisational expertise and mission, rather than forcing unrelated social enterprise models.
Participants also noted that movement organisations already operate as economic actors within constrained systems, often absorbing substantial unpaid labour and transaction costs. Recognising this economic reality was seen as a prerequisite for designing supportive financing approaches.
The key challenge raised was short term and high transaction cost funding that undermines endurance, while the key opportunity raised was strengthening intermediaries and flexible resourcing approaches that enable movements to build resilience on their own terms.
A case study explored an approach that combines gender aligned investing, feminist philanthropy and global grant making within an integrated strategy. The model demonstrated how investment earnings can support long term resourcing for feminist work, alongside grant making and policy influence. Discussion also highlighted the conditions that enable replication, including governance that is accountable to movements, long term vision and trust building, and the importance of clarity on what parts of the model are transferable versus context specific.
Disability and LGBT+ perspectives
Participants highlighted that disability and LGBT+ movements face distinct constraints, including limited access to assets, legal barriers, higher exposure to violence, and underdeveloped financing infrastructure.
Standard models of income generation or social enterprise are often less accessible, reinforcing the need for dedicated intermediaries and customised approaches. Participants emphasised that inclusion requires both representation and redistribution, and that intersectionality must be operationalised through disaggregated data, tailored approaches, and the inclusion of lived experience in decision making.
Economic empowerment was framed not only as income, but as safety, agency and the ability to participate in society without concealment or harm. Participants noted that in some contexts visibility itself creates risk, requiring careful design and trusted intermediaries.
Layered capital approaches were discussed, combining grants to build trust and infrastructure, catalytic capital to bridge the missing middle, and later stage investment where conditions allow. Participants stressed that no universal model exists, and that context specific approaches are necessary.