For technology and business leaders, the useful lesson is not about philanthropy alone; it is about how organisations package evidence of intent. In CSR, ESG and other purpose-led programmes, stakeholders rarely judge only the headline number. They also assess the structure of commitment: cadence, transparency, ownership and whether reporting feels designed to inform or to persuade.
That makes disclosure a governance issue as much as a communications one. If a company already makes contributions in instalments, finance, sustainability, legal and communications teams should agree how to report them consistently, with a clear rationale for what is disclosed monthly, quarterly or annually. The management trade-off is straightforward: more granular reporting can strengthen credibility, but it also increases administration and can expose uneven performance more visibly.
The next question for CIOs, CTOs and transformation leaders is how to prevent โcredibility theatreโ. If reporting cadence becomes a reputational lever, organisations may optimise for appearance rather than substance. That risk argues for controls: define what qualifies as a contribution, set approval thresholds, and tie external claims to auditable source data. The same discipline applies to internal dashboards, where leaders should avoid metrics that reward volume of announcements over real outcomes.
There is also a change-management angle. Employees often infer seriousness from consistency, not slogans. A clear, repeatable reporting model can support trust in the broader purpose agenda, but only if the operating model is disciplined enough to keep numbers, narratives and accountability aligned. Leaders should ask: who owns the data, who signs off the story, and what evidence would prove that the programme is genuine?
Breaking up a monetary donation into smaller amounts can reduce scepticism about your motives for giving.
From Bill Gates to Warren Buffett to MacKenzie Scott, the worldโs most prominent philanthropists often make headlines for their jaw-dropping donations. Gates, for example, has already given awayย more than US$100 billionย of his wealth and has pledged to contribute another US$200 billion over the next two decades. Of course, monetary donations arenโt restricted to the billionaire class or corporate firms. According to theย World Giving Index, 35 percent of people around the world gave money to charity in 2023.
While giving to good causes can be incredibly impactful, people often view monetary donations with cynicism and can be quick to question the donorโs underlying motives. Are they compelled by a genuine desire to help and concern for the cause, or are they driven by self-interested reasons, be it receiving tax breaks, gaining social clout or out of a sense of obligation?
Researchย has shown that this fear of scepticism can reduce the positive impact of peopleโs charitable giving, inclining them to help inย less effective ways. In aย studyย published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, my co-authorย Rebecca Schaumbergย (ESMT Berlin) and I explore a simple avenue through which donors can reduce this scepticism: how they structure their donations.
Perceptions of donors
Picture two donors: One gives US$500 to an animal shelter all at once, while another donates US$100 on five separate occasions over the span of a few months. Who seems more genuinely motivated to help? We predicted that most people would choose the second donor, even though the total amount given by both individuals is exactly the same.ย
Why? Because people think that those who partition their donations experience more frequent impulses to give and have a stronger connection to the cause. Multiple donations are likely to be interpreted as evidence of numerous impulses to act in ways that benefit others or contribute positively to society โ what we call prosocial commitment. And just as repeated actions towards a goal indicate greater personal investment and connection, multiple donations could also reflect deeper emotional engagement.ย
By contrast, a one-time donation might suggest lower emotional investment, and can be perceived as an act that spotlights the magnitude of the contribution and draws attention to the donorโs financial sacrifice. But when it comes to positive moral judgements, people care less about the size of the help provided and more that the person helped at all, and for the right reasons. Partitioned giving therefore likely signals a more genuine, enduring commitment to helping others compared to a one-off grand gesture.
The power of partitioned giving
To test these ideas, we conducted 10 studies with a total of 3,816 participants. We varied whether donors gave in a lump sum or in partitions and explored whether the frequency and schedule of donations influenced perceptions of their prosocial commitment. In one study, for instance, we looked at whether presenting a companyโs yearly donations as split up into smaller amounts, rather than as a single sum, led to people viewing it as more committed to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives.
Across the studies, we found that breaking up donations consistently signalled greater prosocial commitment. The number of donations seemed to act as a signal that the donor had more frequent impulses to give and a greater desire to be connected to the cause they were supporting. This held true across different donation amounts, as well as ways of describing and displaying the partitioned donations.
The effect was enhanced when donors gave on non-consecutive days (rather than consecutive days) but diminished when they gave multiple contributions on a single day (as opposed to different days). This could be because donations spread out over time are seen more as discrete acts, while clustered donations are perceived as part of a single act. However, even those who gave multiple donations on the same day were viewed as more prosocially committed than those who gave a lump-sum contribution.
Importantly, positive perceptions of partitioned giving emerged even when the effort, cost and duration of giving were the same for both partitioned and lump-sum donations. For instance, in one of our studies, we showed participants a donation form in which a donor had either typed โ1โ or โ5โ into a box to process their US$500 donation as a lump sum today (โ1โ) or break it up into five US$100 amounts to be processed today (โ5โ).ย
We found that participants had more positive perceptions of the donorโs motives for giving when they opted to give in partitions rather than as a lump sum, even though the full donation amount was processed on the same day in both scenarios. This suggests that people infer someoneโs prosocial commitment from them making multiple donations per se and not merely because it may require “more workโ than giving a one-off amount.
What this means for donors
Our findings illustrate that how donations are structured can substantially influence peopleโs perceptions of donors and their motives for giving. The takeaway, whether youโre a billionaire philanthropist, corporate donor or individual that truly wants to make a difference, seems clear: Instead of giving a one-off sum, partitioning the figure into smaller amounts, and giving this over time, can reduce scepticism about your genuine intentions for giving and make your contribution more impactful.
For organisations that already split up their donations throughout the year, but do not disclose it as such, this insight is particularly useful. Rather than just reporting one large annual donation figure, companies could additionally break down how much they gave in each month or quarter. This approach can signal their legitimate and ongoing commitment to CSR, without requiring them to alter their donation practices, engage in deception or make any promises about future giving. It merely emphasises an often-overlooked dimension of the donation process.
Thereโs also an internal benefit to doing so.ย Researchย has shown that employees feel more positively about a companyโs CSR efforts when they believe it is legitimately concerned with giving back. By highlighting not just how much they give, but also how often, companies can enhance the effectiveness of their CSR activities and potentially encourage more employees to engage in them.
That said, there are a couple of caveats to our recommendations. First, making multiple donations could generate transaction costs for the charitable organisation, such as additional administrative time and processing fees, which might reduce the overall value and impact of the contribution. Second, thereโs always a risk that shrewd and strategic donors might use partitioned giving to appear generous without having genuine intent. The same pattern of giving that signals sincerity in one case could, in another, be used to fake it.
For individuals and organisations that already give in instalments, transparently communicating this information can signal greater prosocial commitment than just disclosing the total sum given. Dividing a contribution into smaller amounts paints a picture of someone who is deeply committed to making a difference and experiences frequent moments of wanting to help โ and isnโt just ticking a box with a one-off donation.
Edited by:
Rachel Eva Lim
About the author(s)
is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at INSEAD.
About the research
-
Original Post
Related
