Impact first. Scale second.

By Anders Holm, CEO at Hempel Foundation

In philanthropy, "scale" has become almost synonymous with success. The larger the reach, the more impressive the results often appear.

But scale is not impact.

At the Hempel Foundation, we see scale as a means rather than an end. Our ambition is not necessarily to help organisations become larger. It is to help solutions create more lasting impact, because the challenges we seek to address—from learning poverty to biodiversity loss—are so large that they require solutions capable of extending beyond individual projects and creating lasting impact over time.

At its core, scaling is about increasing the reach, influence, or adoption of a solution while maintaining its effectiveness. However, while the basic idea is straightforward, what scaling looks like in practice varies considerably across the sectors and contexts we work in.

Importantly, scale is for us not always synonymous with exponential growth.

Especially in contexts where government systems are weak or absent, or where change is inherently slow—such as nature restoration—progress may be steady rather than rapid. In these cases, linear growth, sustained improvements, or gradual shifts in practices and behaviours may represent the most meaningful form of scale.

We find it useful to think about scaling through different pathways. These can include:

• Replication of successful approaches across geographies or organisations.
• Policy and institutional change that embeds solutions within public systems.
• Shifts in norms, behaviours, and practices.
• Diffusion of ideas and approaches through networks and partnerships.

In practice, sustainable scale often requires navigating several of these pathways simultaneously. The right mix—and the timing—depends on both the context and the maturity of the solution.

This understanding shapes how we approach scaling across our portfolio:

In global education, we work with organisations that seek to improve learning outcomes at scale through government adoption and integration into public education systems. Here, lasting impact depends less on organisational growth and more on whether effective approaches inform reform agendas andbecome embedded in education systems. As scale depends strongly on sustained government commitment, we equally prioritze partnerships that generate evidence on learning outcomes, translate insights into policy action, and convene high-level decision-makers around a shared agenda for enabling all children to access quality primary education.

In our biodiversity work, scaling opportunities often depend less on government uptake and more on strengthening effective conservation approaches across landscapes—for example through the use of technology in biodiversity monitoring or by supporting strategic collaboration among communities and organisations. Equally important we support partners in developing or accessing sustainable finance mechanisms that enable them to scale up and sustain activities beyond our grant.

In our support for social initiatives in Denmark, scaling is often an ambition of the organisations we work with, but they struggle with short-term funding and limited resources to develop the strategies and sustainable business models needed to scale their work. We aim to help organisations strengthen their strategic planning, innovate and adapt their solutions, and diversify their income models so they can reach more people, increase their impact, and build more resilient and future-ready organisations.

In our rewilding work in Denmark, we seek to scale through demonstration, evidence generation, and inspiring communication. By documenting best practice and sharing knowledge openly, we aim to inspire others to replicate and adapt successful rewilding approaches in other landscapes.

While scaling pathways look different within and across our portfolios we have acquired some more general learnings from our work over the years.

First, an ambition for scale cannot become a standardised approach. Strategies must be grounded in the realities in which they operate. Complexity is not something to be avoided—it is something to work with.

Second, preparation for scale should start early. In our experience, opportunities to scale—particularly through government systems—are rarely predictable. They emerge through political shifts, policy windows, changing priorities, or new partnerships. To act on these opportunities, organisations need to be ready: with evidence, with solutions that address real needs, and with the capacity to engage effectively.

Third, supporting scale is not simply about funding growth. It is about providing flexibility, patience, and long-term support so partners can build the foundations that make scaling possible when opportunities arise.

Fourth, supporting scale requires attention to both demand and supply. On the demand side, scaling depends on creating interest and commitment among governments, donors, private sector actors, and other stakeholders that can adopt, fund, or champion effective solutions. Without demand, even the most promising interventions may struggle to achieve wider impact. On the supply side, organisations need the capacity, systems and evidence to deliver effectively at a larger scale. Both are necessary. Strong organisations cannot scale without demand for their solutions, and demand alone is insufficient if organisations are not ready to respond.

Ultimately, scale only matters if it leads to real and lasting impact.

We do not believe there is a single pathway to scale. Different challenges require different approaches. Our role is therefore not to pursue scale for its own sake, but to help identify, support, and enable the forms of scaling that can create meaningful and lasting change.

In philanthropy, scale only matters if it leads to real and lasting impact.

The question is therefore not how to scale faster.

It is how to create the conditions for solutions to deliver lasting impact at a scale that matches the challenges we face.