.foundations: Why communication matters for foundations

Foundations play an important role in addressing social needs and supporting communities. Yet much of the value they create remains difficult for institutions, partners and the wider public to recognise. 

Lundquist’s .foundations 2026 research examines the gap between the contribution foundations make and how effectively they communicate it. 

This is more than a communications issue. When a foundation’s contribution is difficult to understand, public recognition suffers – and with it the ability to build trust, form partnerships, attract resources and strengthen stakeholder relationships. 

What .foundations reveals 

Lundquist’s .foundations research analysed 52 Italian corporate and family foundations across three dimensions: mission, impact and relationships. 

Many foundations explain who they are and what they do, but only the most mature make their public role fully clear. 

The study therefore examined 22 foundations in greater depth, identifying useful examples for the sector. 

Today, a foundation’s credibility depends not only on what it does, but on how clearly it explains its role, its choices and the value it creates. 

A benchmark for trust and public recognition 

The aim of .foundations is not to produce a ranking for its own sake, but to give foundations a benchmark for understanding their strengths, weaknesses and priorities for improvement. 

The research draws on Lundquist’s more than twenty years of work with companies and institutions on reputation, sustainability, accountability and the communication of complex issues. 

What the results show: the most mature foundations connect mission, impact and relationships 

The research shows that foundations with the most mature communications do more than present projects, initiatives and calls for proposals. They connect three dimensions: mission, impact and relationships. 

On mission, the strongest foundations make their distinctive role easy to understand: why they exist, which priorities they choose and what specific contribution they seek to make. Examples include Fondazione Edoardo Garrone, Fondazione EOS and Paolo Chiesi Foundation. 

In the impact area, the difference lies in moving beyond a list of activities and connecting mission, programmes, results and evidence, so that the value created is clear even to a non-specialist audience. Fondazione Snam, The Human Safety Net and UniCredit Foundation are among the organisations that stand out. Reporting is part of the picture. Of the 22 foundations assessed in the final stage, 18 publish an up-to-date and accessible annual, social or mission report. In the strongest cases, these reports do more than describe programmes and activities: they connect mission, strategic priorities, results and impact in language that a wider audience can understand. 

The clearest gap emerges in openness to the public. On the positive side, almost all 22 foundations use clear, non-self-referential language. However, few offer useful content beyond news updates, structured listening tools, targeted points of contact or ways of sharing their expertise. Fondazione Adriano Olivetti, Fondazione Italiana Accenture and Fondazione Piaggio are among the examples highlighted.