Every day, we work with organizations that want to make the world a better place. From those defending the right to housing for the most vulnerable, to those fighting for a climate-neutral region or building a care system in which psychosocial care is as self-evident as medical care.
This report draws on two sources: a survey of more than 400 organizations we have worked with in recent years, and what we see every day in our programs, training courses and support work. Together, they form a picture we want to share.
The perfect storm
The impact sector is caught in a perfect storm: increasing societal challenges, shrinking resources and less policy space. In between: organizations balancing an ideological mission - social equality, climate, inclusion - with a harsh business-economic reality.
Three societal concerns define what preoccupies the sector: social inequality, climate and democratic erosion. They are the existential background noise that colors everything. What stands out is how personally these concerns are interpreted: people write about the young people they see struggling every day, about the gap that is growing between their target group and the rest of society, about the hardening of the debate that dismisses them as experts as 'activists'.
Among both target groups - young people, vulnerable people - and their own staff, another theme is emerging ever more prominently: mental health. The sector suffers from what it fights against. The burnout figures in civil society are tangible: they are the result of years of surviving with too little.
The financial stranglehold
If there is one theme that cuts across everything, it is this: funding for civil society is creaking. This goes beyond a simple shortage of money and is a structural problem that takes three forms.
1. The subsidy squeeze
The government is withdrawing or imposing stricter, administratively burdensome requirements. The shift from structural subsidies to project funding - and the associated planning burden - is experienced as a stranglehold.
"Ever-increasing requirements for small organizations: we have to have a volunteer policy, a participation policy, and a target group policy, while the subsidy amount is peanuts."
- S&L Client2. The project disease
More organizations survive from one project grant to the next. This creates permanent uncertainty and prevents long-term policy. Good initiatives are started and then stopped again. Knowledge evaporates. Financially, it is a balancing act between advances and settlements.
"Working with temporary project funding does help launch great initiatives, but these cannot then be continued because the funding is discontinued."
- Client S&L3. Diversification
There is an urgent need for new revenue models (a mix of subsidies, earned income, and philanthropy). 60% of organizations in the Netherlands (compared with 83% in Flanders) still mainly operate within the Romance model, which is based on subsidies and private donations. But knowledge about this is often still lacking internally. Organizations want to diversify, without really knowing how. Funders, too, often do not know how to truly get started.
Someone summed it up aptly: 'Lack of time due to lack of money, lack of money due to lack of time.' That vicious circle is the most widely shared reality in civil society today.
"Our dependence on subsidies limits our choices, where our energy goes. Writing grant applications..."
"The uncertainty around funding and the lack of decisions, while we as an organization constantly have to demonstrate good governance."
“The organizations that will flourish in the coming years dare to rethink their funding mix—regardless of the size of their subsidies.”
We do not feel heard
Perhaps the most troubling pattern: a deep and widely shared feeling that civil society is not being sufficiently heard at the policy level. Organizations that work daily on the issues that deserve policy attention deserve recognition as the experts they are.
"Lack of insight among funders into what works. Decisions based on indicators that do not measure what they should measure, but are easy to measure."
"Not being taken seriously as an expert in your field because you depend on funding. As if you cannot provide expertise because it concerns your organization."
"Subsidies follow measurable actions. Prevention and invisible care are not validated."
The frustration runs deeper than money. Respondents mention token participation, regulations that change without logic, and a sense of distrust from the government. Terms such as 'Kafka', 'administrative burden' and 'shrinking space' appear several times, as a sign that the relationship between the sector and policy has not become any simpler.
Crucial is this: the feeling of being ‘unheard’ also fuels something else. Militancy. Indignation that mobilizes. Many of the people we spoke with are determined to make themselves heard.
"Political agendas and the desire to score political points too often seem more important than actually tackling social problems.”
"The pressure on civil society to obediently fall in line and the targeting of certain organizations."
The taboo on entrepreneurship is crumbling
From very different sectors, in very different words, the same message is being heard: the sector is struggling with the notion that entrepreneurship can and may also have a place in civil society. More and more people believe that it must.
"Entrepreneurship is possible and allowed - also in the socio-cultural field.
"Too little commercial focus. Still too much supply-driven."
"The financial picture, daring to 'sell'."
At the same time, there is resistance. Justified resistance, often. Respondents warn against creeping economic jargon, against the risk of losing the mission, against the framing of a civil society sector that 'guzzles subsidies'. The tension and concerns are real: organizations that dare to see their services as a product, that treat marketing and sales as strategic tools, are building financial independence.
The third way requires strategic clarity: knowing where your organization stands, where it wants to go, and which financial mix fits with that. That is, especially today, an existential exercise.
"Commercialization, creeping economic jargon, management language - going along with framing around civil society that 'guzzles subsidies'."
"We have to dare to break out of our Western European cocoon. We currently think in terms of subsidies and donations, but there are much more dynamic concepts in value chains - including profit for non-profit."
Power is shifting (and that is good news)
Two movements are together shaping the future of civil society.
-
The context is forcing organisations to become more professional: in impact strategy, organisational structure, governance and financial management.
-
The growth of something that is difficult to fit into an organisational chart. Everywhere we see local initiatives flourishing: citizen groups, neighbourhood collectives, action committees, driven by people who put their energy into what they believe in. Often without a subsidy application, but with a directness that many established organisations recognise.
At the same time, there is a human capital crisis that deserves attention. The wage gap between the private sector and government weighs heavily on the sector. Work pressure is extremely high. Many people talk about 'surviving' and 'putting out fires'. Finding and retaining volunteers is becoming more difficult because engagement is becoming more fleeting. The search for the right employees, with both passion and resilience, was mentioned dozens of times as an organisational challenge.
"Civil society is deprofessionalizing, which is often a good thing. Making more impact with fewer paid staff. That only works if you trust people and give them a say. The shift from 'volunteers' to 'organising' has finally begun in Belgium too."
"Trying to do things the way they have always been done, even though much has changed around us. Sensing that an undercurrent is setting a lot in motion, yet still remaining stuck in more of the same. Not really daring to push through."
"Non-profits are being forced to professionalize: in impact strategy, organizational structure, and recruitment. Alongside passion, performance is also moving to the forefront."
“Organizations that manage to embrace local initiatives without swallowing them up have enormous growth potential.”
The blind spots
Perhaps the most valuable part of everything we gathered: the answers to the question about blind spots and taboos. Here, the sector speaks out about what often remains undiscussed.
Blind spot 1 - Thinking in frameworks
'The little finger barely knows that it is attached to a hand that is attached to an arm…' That is how someone described the sectoral silo mentality. Letting go of sector-based thinking and working transdisciplinarily: the sector knows it; practice follows slowly. The same applies in all subsidy-dependent sectors: safeguarding one’s own resources serves the organization, rarely the societal goals it stands for.
Blind spot 2 - Preaching inclusion, practicing exclusion
A painful taboo that was mentioned several times: the sector preaches inclusion outwardly, while governing bodies and senior management are not very diverse. There is a gap between the leadership and the diversity of the target group. Someone put it sharply: 'Putting inclusion and participation forward as an external objective, but doing too little work on inclusion as an internal objective. As a result, the external objective loses credibility.'
Blind spot 3 - The little kingdoms...
There is a great deal of criticism within the sector itself. Charities work in the same areas without collaborating. There is competition for resources, while a coalition for impact would yield more. Everyone wants to keep their own foundation or association, while mergers or intensive collaboration would be more efficient.
"The hollow willingness to collaborate, due to increased competition for obtaining operating funds."
"The NGO sector has not succeeded in reinventing itself in all these years. Many talk a lot about collaboration... but only in the way that suits them."
Proving impact is no longer optional
'What is your impact?' It is the key question - from funders, boards, policymakers and increasingly the general public too. Those who can clearly explain and demonstrate impact are in a stronger position. Those who lag behind in this become vulnerable.
There is frustration - within the sector itself - about measuring output, numbers and figures, while real social change remains underexposed. At the same time, organizations honestly admit that they collect insufficient data themselves to substantiate their relevance, or sometimes simply do not know how.
What stands out among organizations that excel at this: they treat doubt as a tool. The question of whether they are truly achieving what they claim thus becomes an answer for making adjustments.
"It is difficult to capture the real impact that exists and make it truly visible."
"Blind spots in organizations: not looking enough at the bigger picture. Often due to lack of time and not being able to give it priority."
"A need for a new perspective. Organizations are very strongly attached to the old ways. Society is evolving, and it is a matter of reinventing the mission and translating impact differently."
Together, but how?
Political uncertainty, austerity logic, polarization, staff shortages: each of these are challenges that no organization can solve alone. The reflex to do it yourself anyway is persistent. Behind that reflex lies a painful paradox: organizations that share the same mission compete with each other for the same scarcity.
"Low salaries for people who are committed to a good cause, making it difficult to find competent people. Too many charities working toward the same goal, resulting in a lot of wasted resources."
- S&L CustomersShared back offices, joint fundraising campaigns, cross-sector coalitions - the possibilities are enormous. So are the barriers: fear of losing autonomy, competition for limited resources, cultural differences. More and more organizations are overcoming them.
"More and more organizations are coming under financial pressure. They are looking to form coalitions and jointly manage their overhead costs more efficiently."
"It would be interesting to seek and find more allies beyond the walls of one's own sector."
"We are still too afraid to collaborate: in coalitions, but also in actions and back office. There is a lot to be gained there."
What do you expect from us?
We also asked: what do you value in external guidance? When do you bring it in? What do you expect? The answers were surprisingly unanimous.
1. A mirror
What keeps coming up: the value of an external perspective. From someone who listens, understands, and dares to say what remains unspoken internally.
"A facilitator who tries to understand us and also dares to question things - but above all, working tailored to the organization is the most important thing."
"The ability to name issues and make them open for discussion without taboo or baggage from the past."
"Real expertise, solid knowledge! Not a pseudo-coach who comes to ask 'the right questions'."
2. Actionable and concretely applicable
What has value: co-creation that leads to an action plan the organization can actually implement. Concrete. Feasible. Tailor-made. Because: today, you can just as easily get a slide deck as a translation of a management book from Claude.
"Zooming out and having to stay focused: where were we again? What path are we walking? Aren't we going in circles too much?"
"I don't like talking for the sake of talking. It has to lead to something concrete."
3. A partner, more than a supplier
Organizations want a partner who thinks along with them, grows with them, and remains available even after the process. Someone who knows their sector - in practice. The desired role is that of a strategic sounding board: someone who helps them think better, gain sharper focus, and find the courage to make the choices that should have been made long ago.
"That it is a genuine partnership and that you don’t get the feeling it is commercial support."
"It gave us a push to follow through on decisions we would never have reached internally. The external expertise carried more weight."
What we think at S&L
Antonio Gramsci once wrote: 'The old world is dying and the new one has not yet been born. It is the time of monsters.' We recognize that image. Civil society is right in the middle of that turning point: the old models have run their course, while the new ones are still taking shape.
We are in the midst of a transition. Transitions are messy, uncomfortable, full of contradictions. At a certain point, the transition requires a choice: letting go of the familiar, embracing the uncertain.
What we see, across all the answers, is that this choice is becoming increasingly urgent. Organizations know they need to change. They feel it in their funding, in their governance, in their team, in their relationship with the government. The act of changing itself (letting go of the familiar, embracing the uncertain) remains the most difficult part.
“Fighting spirit and inspiration are essential. The next step calls for strategy: building scenarios, measuring capacity for change - as a sector, as an organization, as a leader.”
In concrete terms, that means daring to open the hood. At the level of the model, beyond the mission. How do we generate income? How do we organize our people? How do we measure what we are worth? How do we say goodbye to operations that have run their course, even if we are attached to them?
That is easier said than done. Saying goodbye to something you have built is one of the hardest things there is. The organizations we see emerging strongest from this transition are the most honest ones. They dare to ask the ugly questions. They dare to get their hands dirty with new models - funding models, collaboration models, organizational models - even when these are still under development. They know that progress begins before the perfect model exists.
We believe that civil society will need more entrepreneurship in the coming years - the entrepreneurship of mission-driven renewal. The courage to experiment. The discipline to measure. The honesty to adjust course. And the connection to do it together.
"The world around organizations is more volatile than ever. Developing different future scenarios helps them prepare flexibly for what lies ahead."
"Changing times are a golden opportunity for many organizations, but absolutely also a pitfall in which they can drown in the challenges coming their way."
"I see many organizations writing with great concern and determination about the attacks on civil society. How we can organize, engage in, and win that fight effectively is still something we are exploring."
This piece is a snapshot. A shared insight at a tipping point. The transition is in full swing. But what lies in between - that is where the work happens.
Would you like to discuss this further? Contact Stijn Demuynck: about your organization, your sector, or the future of civil society.
Disclaimer - This report is based on conversations, programs, and a broad survey among 400 professionals from civil society (autumn 2025).
