What Canada Can Learn from the UK’s New Office for the Impact Economy

In this conversation, Sara Krynitzki, PFC’s Associate CEO, sits down with Michele Fugiel Gartner, PFC’s Lead Researcher, to unpack her recent trip to the Beacon Forum on February 11, 2026 in London, UK, where she explored the country’s emerging approach to building an impact economy.

The Beacon Forum is an annual gathering in the UK that brings together philanthropists, investors, advisers and civil society leaders to explore how to grow impact capital and drive social change. It serves as a cross-sector space for discussion, learning and collaboration on the issues shaping the future of giving and impact in the UK.

1. From your perspective at PFC, how does the creation of the UK’s Office for the Impact Economy reflect broader global trends we’ve been witnessing in philanthropic and impact investing policy?

There is a significant shift in the social climate across countries like Canada and the UK, where tightening government funding coincides with increasing social needs. This has led to a belief that society must collectively address these challenges through the Impact Economy, defined in the UK as an ecosystem prioritizing public benefit over private gain, valued at approximately £428 billion, or 15% of GDP.

The UK’s Office for the Impact Economy signifies an important evolution, emphasizing that tackling complex social issues requires collaboration among civil society, philanthropy, and business. It also highlights a trend toward local empowerment, recognizing that communities are best equipped to understand and address their unique challenges.

2. What aspects of Beacon’s role in trying to shape the UK impact economy resonate most with PFC’s own work to strengthen Canada’s philanthropic ecosystem?

Seen globally, these shifts mirror trends PFC is tracking: a move toward embedding impact investing, social innovation, and community‑driven policy directly into governance structures. What stands out in the UK is the framing of the impact economy as a nation‑building project rooted in shared values and optimism, rather than a technical or incremental policy adjustment. It signals an emerging consensus that impactful governance can only happen when government, philanthropy, civil society, and business are aligned from the outset, co‑creating solutions rather than operating in separate lanes or engaging only at the end of the policy cycle.

Beacon’s conversations highlighted that philanthropy must be celebrated and normalized, and that different funders contribute different pieces to a broader mosaic. This mirrors PFC’s understanding of philanthropy as an ecosystem with diverse strengths and roles. We see similar opportunities in Canada to elevate philanthropy’s visibility, clarify its contributions, and encourage more active engagement across sectors.

3. In your conversations and sessions at the Forum, what insights emerged that could support or inform PFC’s current research agenda, especially around impact investing and Home in Government?

The most immediate lesson is the importance of embedding civil society early in the policy process, something that deeply reinforces the Canadian sector’s Home in Government work. The UK’s framing positions civil society as a co‑architect of the impact economy, not a stakeholder to be consulted later.

Another valuable insight is the recognition that data infrastructure is fundamental. Speakers repeatedly stressed that fragmented data limits the design of social solutions. For PFC, this reinforces our research focus on building shared data systems, improving insight into community needs, and supporting evidence‑driven impact investing.

Finally, the Forum surfaced a strong emphasis on accountability and long-term policy coherence. This echoes a theme we see in Canada: philanthropic and community actors are willing partners, but partnership requires stability and a clear vision from government.

4. The Beacon Collaborative was involved in the development of the new Office for the Impact Economy in the UK government, meant to provide a single front door for impact investors, philanthropy and purpose-driven businesses to partner with the government. How are UK foundations engaging with public policy development through the Office for the Impact Economy, and what parallels or opportunities do you see for PFC’s policy work in Canada?

It is still very early days for the Office for the Impact Economy. Government officials emphasized that the initiative is only five months old, and that much of the work currently focuses on internal organization, bringing civil servants into the office, arranging secondments, and assembling the necessary expertise and frameworks to support the emerging system. This reflects the reality that the broader architecture of the impact economy is still in formation rather than fully developed.

For Canada, the opportunity lies in strengthening channels between philanthropy and government, federally, provincially and locally. PFC’s policy work can build on the UK’s example by encouraging the government to create similar “front doors” for engagement, while ensuring that communities shape the agenda. In the UK, this approach is paired with a notable openness from government to being held accountable. Commentaries at the Forum suggested accountability needs to include commitments to clear objectives, transparent rules, and long‑term stability.

5. Were there examples from the UK of successful collaboration between government, philanthropy, and the private sector that we in Canada could explore or adapt in the Canadian context?

One of the clearest examples is the government’s commitment to not holding all the power. They articulated a desire for community to become the “top table,” with government acting as facilitator rather than commander. This philosophy hopes to enable more fluid partnerships across philanthropy, community groups, and business.

Another insight emerged from the discussion of business engagement. With 75% of UK businesses still not participating in charitable activities, there is clear room for improvement; however, the UK’s candid acknowledgment of this gap has created momentum for change. Canada can take note: openly identifying the gap is a first step toward stronger private-sector participation in community investment and impact work.

6. Based on what you heard at Beacon, what gaps or unmet needs in the UK ecosystem mirror challenges PFC has identified in its research on Canadian foundations?

Several unmet needs were strikingly familiar.

Youth voices are notably missing, a challenge we also see in Canada, where young people’s leadership and lived experience remain underrepresented in national philanthropy and impact‑economy conversations.

Data silos also continue to limit impact. As in Canada, the UK requires more integrated systems that enable policymakers, funders, and communities to design solutions using shared, connected information rather than fragmented datasets.

Business engagement in social investment remains uneven. This mirrors Canadian patterns and suggests a parallel opportunity to strengthen cross-sector collaboration and encourage deeper private‑sector participation in community outcomes.

Finally, both countries struggle with policy discontinuity. Civil society requires long-term, stable commitments from government in order to build meaningful partnerships, yet frequent shifts in policy direction or program focus can undermine the consistency needed for real system‑level change.

7. If you were to share one message with PFC members about the future of the impact economy, based on what you learned at the Forum, what would it be, and how does it align with PFC’s emerging priorities?

This is the beginning of the Impact Economy initiative, and civil society has a crucial leadership role to play. It’s important to note that this is not the first national UK effort of its kind: people remember Big Society, they remember Levelling Up, and now we are at the start of the Impact Economy. That history matters, and one presenter wisely reminded us: don’t let this become “lunch, launch, logo.”

What feels different today is the tone and the approach. The UK’s early steps affirm that the future impact economy must be collaborative, place-based, accountable, and rooted in shared values. This aligns directly with PFC’s strategic priorities. The UK government seems to be shifting its approach to fostering an environment where ideas naturally emerge from communities, charities, lived experiences, and local actors. A presenter illustrated this by contrasting the cafetière method of making coffee, which pushes coffee downward, with the percolator method that bubbles and allows ideas to rise and infuse from below.

Government action alone is insufficient; the impact economy will require the ideas, energy, and insights of communities, charities, philanthropy, and young people whose voices must not be left out.