The State of Corporate Social Impact

Alissa: When we talk about corporate social impact, it’s easy to get stuck in anecdotes, headlines, or whatever the news cycle is pulling our attention toward. But today, we’re grounding this conversation in data. We’re looking at two of the most widely used datasets in the field, the sixth annual CSR Insights Report from ACCP and the 20th edition of Giving in Numbers from CECP, to understand what 2025 is really telling us, and what social impact leaders should be watching as they plan for 2026.

Christina: That’s what makes this moment so important. Social impact work is becoming more complex, more scrutinized, and more directly connected to business strategy. Teams are being asked to explain their value the same way any other business function would, and that changes how practitioners need to think about priorities, measurement, and decision-making.

Sara: Exactly. These reports give us a clear snapshot of what’s shifting, what’s holding steady, and where the pressure is building. And the goal here is not just to react to the data, but to translate it into what leaders should do next.

Alissa: So let’s start with the theme that shows up most consistently across both reports: business alignment. It’s not new, but it’s becoming dominant. Social impact teams are under increasing pressure to directly connect their work to business outcomes, and the expectation to prove that link has not eased.

Christina: The pressure is coming from every direction. Externally, the political and regulatory landscape has shifted. Executive orders, increased scrutiny, and broader societal debates are forcing companies to reassess risk and justify their investments more carefully. Internally, executives are asking harder questions about relevance, value, and return. Social impact teams are being evaluated like any other business unit now.

Sara: And even though purpose-aligned companies continue to outperform over time, the business case for social impact is never permanently settled. Companies operate in short-term cycles, while impact requires long-term thinking. Leadership transitions make it harder too, because new CEOs often want the case rebuilt from scratch, even if the data has been consistent for years.

Alissa: That’s such an important point. Even when the evidence is strong, the story has to be retold, again and again. And part of what makes that challenging is measurement. It’s easier to quantify some outcomes, but others are harder to prove cleanly.

Christina: Right. Employee retention is measurable. But brand reputation, financial advantage, and risk mitigation are harder to tie directly to impact work. A lot of it relies on correlation rather than causation, which makes it harder to deliver simple proof points, especially when leadership is asking for certainty.

Alissa: Now let’s talk about giving and budgets, because CECP’s long-term data gives a clear signal here. Sara, what does the data show?

Sara: Corporate giving has stabilized over time, generally staying within the 25 to 30 percent range. But inflation-adjusted community investment is down about 16 percent since 2020. That reflects a correction after the extraordinary surge during the pandemic and other global crises. Many companies describe current levels as the new normal, but recent pulse surveys suggest that a lot of leaders are anticipating tighter budgets in 2026.

Alissa: So we’re seeing stability on paper, but real pressure underneath. And alongside that, we’re seeing shifts in where budgets go, especially in terms of issue areas. Both reports point to a move away from politically sensitive areas, toward focus areas that feel safer and more directly tied to business needs.

Sara: Disaster relief is a good example. It has declined significantly, partly because it spikes during crises and then tapers. But at the same time, community and economic development funding is increasing. There’s more focus on workforce readiness, local resilience, and long-term economic stability. And health and social services remain a top focus area across many companies.

Christina: ACCP’s data reinforces that shift. Environmental sustainability dropped for the first time after ranking as a top priority for years. Racial equity and social justice also saw declines. Meanwhile, hunger relief, education, and workforce development rose sharply. These areas are seen as more defensible, easier to align with business goals, and clearer to measure.

Alissa: Another reality we can’t ignore is capacity. CSR teams are leaner than ever, and the workload is not slowing down.

Christina: Many CSR teams are teams of one, and most are operating without headcount growth even as responsibilities expand. So technology is becoming essential. AI is being adopted rapidly, but most use cases right now are still focused on drafting, summarizing, and operational efficiency, rather than deeper impact measurement or analysis.

Alissa: And that raises the next question: what’s holding teams back from using AI more strategically?

Christina: There are a few barriers. One is the lack of standardized KPIs across portfolios, which makes analysis harder. Another is nonprofit data quality, which varies widely. And then there are real concerns about data sensitivity and trust, especially for companies without strong proprietary systems. Some organizations also still have policies that restrict AI use altogether.

Sara: And there’s also a missing piece that doesn’t get talked about enough, which is worker voice. Tools are often designed in silos without input from the employees who actually know where efficiencies are needed. When you involve employees in AI tool design, adoption and relevance improve dramatically.

Alissa: Now, even with all this pressure, we’re still seeing companies find ways to sustain impact. Sara, what are high-performing companies doing differently when it comes to cost control?

Sara: They’re focusing on maturity rather than expansion. Staffing levels are holding steady, which is encouraging. But instead of relying only on cash giving, they’re looking at their full value chain. Pro bono support, in-kind contributions, and deeper nonprofit partnerships are becoming more important. The goal is to do more with existing assets rather than continuously increasing spend.

Alissa: And on the employee side, Gen Z is influencing strategy in a big way. Christina, what are you seeing?

Christina: Gen Z places a high value on purpose and expects transparency and involvement. Companies are responding by expanding employee engagement options, including ambassador programs, volunteer incentives, giving circles, and employee-led grantmaking. The expectation for involvement is rising not just from leadership, but from employees themselves.

Sara: And the data supports that. Offering a broader menu of engagement options leads to higher participation. Listening through surveys and ERGs is essential. Skills-based volunteering, matching gifts, and dollars-for-doers are growing because they let employees align company support with what they personally care about.

Alissa: What’s interesting is that employee engagement budgets are growing even as other budgets tighten. Why is that happening?

Christina: Because the business case is clearer. Engagement is easier to defend internally, and it’s often seen as safer and less polarizing. Investing in engagement helps rebuild trust and culture, especially at a time when many companies are being quieter externally.

Sara: Volunteering and engagement also drive positive attitudes toward the company, strengthen internal relationships, and build leadership skills. Those benefits connect directly to retention, recruitment, and performance, which makes them easier to justify to executives.

Alissa: But even with that investment, participation is slowing in some places. Christina, what’s driving that?

Christina: Remote and hybrid work has blurred boundaries between work and personal time, which makes participation more complex. And there’s also a growing recognition that depth may matter more than scale. Companies are questioning whether participation rates alone are the right metric, and shifting toward fewer, deeper, more skills-based engagements.

Sara: Employees still want to be involved. The slowdown isn’t a sign that people don’t care, it’s a sign that the model needs to evolve. Quality, impact, and meaning are becoming more important than volume.

Alissa: So as we look ahead, where do we think AI becomes standard in social impact work by the end of 2026?

Sara: I think we’ll see AI used more to share and scale what works through open-source tools. That reduces duplication and lowers barriers for nonprofits, especially those that don’t have the same resources as large companies.

Christina: And internally, AI will likely become standard for analysis, mapping participation trends, matching employee skills to opportunities, and generating insights from engagement data. That’s where it can really support teams that are stretched thin.

Alissa: At the same time, some parts of this work will always remain human. What do we think those are?

Christina: Grantmaking decisions will always require human judgment. Relationships, context, trust, and nuance can’t be fully captured by technology.

Sara: And assessing community need, building partnerships, and understanding what’s happening on the ground requires direct conversation and long-term relationship building. Humans will always be essential for interpreting data and making sense of complex realities.

Alissa: So if we had to bring this home into a 2026 planning lens, what’s the biggest strategic guidance for how companies should allocate employee engagement budgets?

Christina: The focus should be on going deeper, not broader. Place-based strategies, hyperlocal investments, and ecosystem approaches are gaining traction. Companies are consolidating portfolios, making fewer grants, and investing more deeply in trusted partners, with alignment to business goals staying critical.

Sara: And leaders should resist the urge to build more programs just to look active. Instead, focus on where your company can make the greatest impact with its unique skills and assets. Depth, focus, and integration across issue areas will matter more than expansion.

Alissa: We also have to acknowledge the political uncertainty shaping how companies communicate about this work. Christina, what are you seeing there?

Christina: Companies are becoming quieter externally, while doing extensive scenario planning internally. Communications are more cautious, with fewer public announcements and less promotional messaging, even as the work continues behind the scenes.

Sara: But staying silent carries risk too. Trust has an expiration date. Companies still need to communicate clearly why they’re doing the work they’re doing, and how it aligns with business strategy. The language may change, but the need to say something doesn’t go away.

Alissa: To close, I want to make this practical. If a leader is listening and thinking, “We don’t have new budget, we don’t have more staff, but we need to move forward,” what can they do in the next 90 days?

Sara: Two things. First, reconnect with community partners. Ask how they’re doing, and explore how your full value chain can support them, not just your cash budget. Second, engage internal teams, especially communications, to align messaging, understand shared KPIs, and reinforce the business case for social impact.

Alissa: This was such a clear and grounding conversation. Thank you both for helping translate the data into what leaders actually need to know, and what they can do next.

Christina: Thank you, Alissa. It’s a moment that calls for focus, clarity, and smarter strategy, not just more activity.

Sara: Thank you. And if there’s one takeaway, it’s that social impact is still moving forward, but the leaders who succeed will be the ones who go deeper, align better, and build trust through the work.

‍