In the time before endless scrolling on social media, and the constant new ‘must have’, from a global fast-fashion giant, Dr Seuss’ The Lorax warned us of overconsumption and the dangers of valuing profit over the planet. Yet, instead of heeding The Lorax’s warning, capitalism has evolved, morphing into a more palatable form by merging with philanthropy; giving rise to philanthrocapitalism. This evolution has allowed market-driven thinking to ‘solve’ social problems and is driven by billionaires and corporations, promising us a fairer system – but offering us questions about power, inequity and accountability. 

Philanthrocapitalism and its companion Anthropocentrism are central elements explored by the Wellness Inc. (2025) project, which aims to highlight overconsumption in our society and how it impacts the planet. This project seeks to understand how society has been influenced to consume and shift the responsibility for systemic issues onto corporations, whilst encouraging the importance of individual actions. This blog will explore philanthrocapitalism and its social consequences. 

What is Philanthrocapitalism? 

Philanthrocapitalism can be defined as ‘the strategic application of market methods and motives for philanthropic purposes’. In simpler terms, it involves using capitalist methods such as competition and efficiency to address social issues traditionally handled by charities or governments. In 2008, Matthew Bishop and Michael Green popularised the term in their book ‘Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save The World’, where they discuss the role of wealthy individuals and organisations in addressing social and environmental challenges facing the planet.  

Philanthrocapitalism’s blend of business strategies and philanthropic efforts allow social issues to be approached like technical issues, through data-driven solutions. This can provide attention to social issues, especially due to the involvement of high-net-worth individuals and organisations. However, by blending charity with business, charitable efforts are treated more like investments than altruism, falling into the trap of performative activism. This is highlighted by the portrayal of those receiving aid as ‘productive entrepreneurs’ – individuals who can help themselves, if provided with the tools. This favours those deemed ‘deserving’, overlooking those who do not fit this narrow standard, neglecting how complex their situation may be. 

Who Are Philanthrocapitalists?  

Philanthrocapitalists are wealthy individuals, with media influence, such as Bill and Melinda Gates, Oprah Winfrey and social media influencers like Mr. Beast and Kylie Jenner. Through foundations and initiatives, they blend business and charity to tackle global issues, ranging from education to poverty. However, their efforts often depoliticise the social issue that they are drawing attention to; this means that the underlying systemic issue is removed, and the focus is on surface-level solutions instead. For instance, following the murder of George Floyd, Jenner made donations to organisations working to combat racial injustice rather than fighting for systemic change or addressing the root causes of racial inequality. While donations from wealthy public figures are important, their impact is like slapping a plaster over the issue, rather than contributing to a lasting solution. 

Criticisms of Philanthrocapitalism  

Philanthrocapitalism has garnered significant criticism, alongside concerns regarding its depoliticisation of issues. One major criticism is the impact of wealthy individuals and their undemocratic influence. Billionaires can fund and direct initiatives without being elected, such as Jeff Bezos, whose investment in space exploration has been criticised, whilst many issues prevail on Earth. This raises concerns about whose interests are being served. Through positioning wealthy individuals as saviours, philanthrocapitalism allows them to maintain unsustainable lifestyles, such as use of private jets, while claiming to address global issues; ensuring that those reliant on their charitable initiatives remain dependent – perpetuating the status quo. 

Performative Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is another significant criticism of philanthrocapitalism. Many corporations use philanthropy as a marketing tool, allowing them to be viewed as socially responsible. This can be seen in practices such as ‘greenwashing’ or ‘woke-washing’, where companies like Amazon claim to support social causes, such as climate change, but contribute to mass carbon emissions and union busting. Many companies use ‘round up and donate’ programs which encourage customers to contribute small amounts to causes. Whilst this is charitable, these initiatives can serve as performative CSR: companies are able to receive tax deductions and support a cause, while avoiding genuine systemic change. 

Wellness, Self-Care, and Philanthrocapitalism 

Wellness capitalism, like philanthrocapitalism, thrives on the commodification of wellbeing. It can be defined as a ‘model of public health involving the state, employers, and a wellness industry’ in which an individual’s behaviours are monitored to improve societal health. This includes employee wellness programmes, and other self-care products and services designed to improve mental, physical and emotional health. This allows wellbeing to be shifted to an individual issue, rather than being recognised as one also rooted in governmental, workplace, and broader societal structures.  

Self-care capitalism is a subset of wellness capitalism, which turns self-care practices such as skincare routines, into commodities through promoting the idea that personal success and wellbeing can be purchased. It feeds off the desire to quicky ‘fix’ yourself, rather than looking at the causes of stress, pushing away mental health through consumption rather than therapy or genuine help. 

Wellness capitalism works like philanthrocapitalism by turning social good into a purchasable item, rewarding corporations with social capital, all while profiting from your sadness and struggles. Both models shift responsibility for issues onto consumers and invent new things to be worried about (seriously, what are blueberry milk nails, am I in love even though I didn’t get a ‘brr basket’ this winter?) which allows – you guessed it – corporations to profit without promoting systemic change. 

Conclusion 

Philanthrocapitalism and wellness capitalism may seem like solutions, but they focus on quick fixes and therefore aren’t as effective as we think. While the ultra-rich and their businesses can make a difference, true improvement requires collective action and systemic reform so that inequality and injustice can be pulled out from their roots. While innovation is important, lasting change comes from society coming together – instead of buying change, let’s build it. 

By Flic Lindo, SGO Projects Officer

Sources 

Steph Haydon, Tobias Jung, Shona Russell, ‘”You’ve Been Framed”: A critical reiew of academic discourse on philanthrocapitalism’

Gabriel Dumitru Micescu, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility as a Strategic Tool: Impact on Stakeholder Perceptions and Organisational Performance. Case Study” The Pharma Industry

Alliancemagazine.org, ‘Philanthrocapitalism: How the rich can save the world – Matthew Bishop and Michael Green’

Matthew Bishop, ’Philanthrocapitalism: Solving Public Problems through Private Means’

Accuracy.org, ’What is “Wellness Capitalism’

Genderjusticeproject.org, ‘The Capitalism of Self-Care’

Red Star Education, ‘Commodification of self-care in a capitalist society’