European Commission highlights the issue of non-transparent funding of NGOs

Despite the numerous alarm signals raised in recent years regarding the funding received by some non-governmental organizations from large global corporations in technology, industry or energy, the European Commission does not consider that the risk regarding the legality of this funding would be greater than in the case of other legal entities, according to an official response recently provided by European Commissioner Piotr Serafin, on behalf of the Brussels Executive, to Italian MEP Susanna Ceccardi, following an interpellation formulated by her in the European Parliament.

The Commission's response is strange, if we take into account the fact that in Special Report 11/2025 the European Court of Auditors mentioned serious shortcomings in the control mechanisms - from the lack of clarity on the real beneficiaries, to the use of unverified self-certifications and the deficient monitoring of lobbying activities financed with European money - of non-governmental organizations. However, the European Commission continues to maintain that NGO status does not entail any additional risk in itself. This relatively neutral approach comes in a tense context, in which more and more voices accuse some NGOs, especially those active in the field of migration or marine protection, of hidden agendas and non-transparent connections with global economic interests.

A telling example was recently presented within the EPP political group by the MarInnLeg foundation in the report "Diagnostic of Blue Interest Groups”, a document that reveals indirect links between environmental organizations and giants of the fossil and technological industries, involved in activities such as deep-sea mining. Such findings not only raise suspicions about the real objectives of certain environmental campaigns, but also fuel fears about the possible hijacking of European policies under the influence of actors outside the Union.

The cited report states: "Some of the global philanthropic actors included in this document were founded - or receive considerable support - from renowned philanthropic foundations, the overwhelming majority of which are entities from the Anglo-Saxon world, whose heritage comes from businesses in the oil, raw materials or technological inventions. These entities belong, in our opinion, to a first generation of philanthropy, as they are powerful organizations that were created with part of the fortune of famous tycoons from the past. For example, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is powered by the legacy of the famous John D. Rockefeller Jr., who made his fortune through the Standard Oil company. Similarly, the Marisla Foundation was created by the heiress of the fortune of the tycoon J. Paul Getty, founder of Getty Oil. The Pew Charitable Trust, founded by Jonathan N. Pew and his heirs, who made their fortune through the Sun Oil Company, which later became Sunoco, also falls into the same category. There is, let's say, a second generation of philanthropists, who built their fortunes in the second half of the 20th century. One example is Alan Parker, founder of the Oak Foundation, who was a partner in DTS Group (Duty Free Shopping) - a luxury retail chain for travelers, now part of the LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton group. With the funds from this business, Parker created the foundation. Another example is the Wyss Campaign for Nature, an initiative of The Wyss Foundation, founded by a businessman who made his fortune with the company Synthes USA; the campaign has an endowment of $1.5 billion with the goal of protecting 30% of the planet by 2030. Finally, a third generation has emerged in recent years, consisting of entities - not always charities - founded with funds from entrepreneurs in the field of new technologies. One example is the Bezos Earth Fund, created in 2020 by entrepreneur Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, with a financial commitment of $10 billion to address climate and nature issues, with the goal of contributing to achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. By February 2023, over 100 grants totaling $1.63 billion had already been awarded. As for nature conservation and restoration programs, approximately $2 billion has been budgeted by 2030 for projects in this area, including the one to protect 30% of the planet. Another example in this category is Oceankind, which appears on the map of organizations as a well-connected donor, but which, apparently, is a company funded by the wife of one of the co-founders of Google. There are many connections of different natures between the entities included in this report, either through mutual cooperative relationships or through rather unidirectional relationships, in which some provide funding to others. It is worth noting that some organizations have created independent entities, such as Oceana International, founded by five foundations - Marisla, Oak, Sandler, Pew and the Rockefeller Brothers - which in turn support Oceana Europa. Also It is observed that some founding entities of some conservative funders provide support to others, thus amplifying their contributions through different funding channels, such as: Oceana Europa received funds from Adessium, which is also a founder of Oceans 5 and, according to available data, also contributed to Oceana International, which in turn supports Oceana Europa; WWF EPO received funds from Oceans 5, which also collaborates with EJF. A strange element is the emergence of very strong alliances between conservative funders, both in terms of financial and advocacy capacity. There are numerous networks and alliances in which an impressive number of organizations participate, including some of the most prominent. Some are well-known in the fisheries field, such as On the Hook, Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, Seas at Risk, or alliances dedicated to a specific species, such as the NGO Tuna Forum”.

In parallel, European fishermen - directly affected by these policies - are asking the Commission for clear tools to verify the sources of funding of NGOs, especially when these organisations promote restrictions that endanger the economic sustainability of coastal communities.

Although the Commission promises new transparency measures by 2027, including a formal definition of NGOs in the financial regulations and a more efficient digital system for displaying the beneficiaries of European funds, scepticism persists among those who believe that external influences have already made their way into the EU decision-making process.

However, Brussels stresses that all organisations - whether NGOs or commercial entities - are required to register with the Transparency Register and declare major contributions, which, in theory, should guarantee a minimum of control. From the MarInnLeg foundation report, we note that at the end of last year, 13,157 legal entities with various interests were listed in the respective register, grouped into the following categories:

- Non-governmental organizations, platforms and networks and similar: 3,626

- Companies and groups: 3,490

- Professional and business organizations: 2,640

- Trade unions and professional associations: 995

- Think tanks and research entities: 590

- Consultancy: 528

- other organizations, public or mixed: 521

- Academic institutions: 340

- Associations and networks of public authorities: 178

- Independent workers: 125

- Law firms: 73

- Organizations representing churches and religious communities: 47

- Entities, offices and networks of third countries: 4

However, practice shows that the current mechanisms are not sufficient to decipher the complexity of funding networks, especially in the context of the use of opaque financial vehicles such as donor-advised funds. Therefore, even if the formal risk is not considered higher, the reality on the ground reveals an unstable landscape, in which the good faith of some organizations is overshadowed by persistent suspicions and the lack of firm governance capable of separating European public interests from the hidden agendas of global capital.