Family Offices, Foundations and the Super South
John Lanier is the executive director of the Ray C. Anderson Foundation, where he champions environmental stewardship and sustainable business practices. Inspired by his grandfather, sustainability pioneer Ray Anderson, John leads the Foundation’s efforts to advance climate solutions and circular economy innovation. A passionate advocate and author, he works to create a thriving, regenerative world for future generations.
Dena Kimball is a former executive director of The Kendeda Fund and currently a social sector consultant and adjunct lecturer at Emory University and the University of Georgia. She previously held leadership roles at Teach For All, Teach For America and GirlVentures. Dena holds a Master’s in Public Policy from Harvard Kennedy School and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Emory.
The discussion framed Southern climate innovation as a long-term movement built through stewardship, patient capital, durable institutions and trust in local leadership. Participants explored how philanthropy can support climate progress not only by funding visible projects, but by strengthening the people, organizations and civic infrastructure that make future breakthroughs possible. The conversation centered on the built environment, spend-down philanthropy, leadership development and the strategic value of quiet behind-the-scenes work.
A central insight was that climate innovation becomes durable when capital is placed into things that can outlast the funding itself. Participants connected durability to buildings, organizations, leadership pipelines and community capacity.
The living building example was not presented as a one-off achievement, but as proof that ambitious climate design can happen in the South and can influence future work through materials innovation, mass timber adoption and student inspiration. The caveat is that durability does not mean replication exactly. The intended impact was for others to improve on the model rather than copy it.
Philanthropy Can Lead by Trusting Grantees to Define Impact
The conversation challenged top-down approaches to measurement. Rather than building a large internal structure to define success for grantees, the foundation stayed lean and invested in organizations’ ability to define, track and communicate their own impact. This approach treated grantees as experts in their own work. The discussion highlighted measurable outcomes such as millions of square feet of greener commercial space, hundreds of buildings involved and millions in energy savings redirected into nonprofit missions. The caveat is that this model may not produce a single simple impact statement, but it can produce deeper ownership and stronger organizations.
The climate priority emerged from a worldview of stewardship, love of nature and responsibility for wealth as something to move into better hands. This shaped a funding style focused on finding and building the good rather than only fighting the bad. The built environment became a practical arena because people spend most of their lives there and buildings drive emissions. This gave the work a grounded focus: religious institutions, commercial buildings, nonprofit facilities and campus infrastructure became climate action sites.
Leadership Investment Was Treated as Climate Infrastructure
Participants repeatedly emphasized investing in leaders before their ideas were fully validated by the broader field. This included established movement builders, emerging nonprofit leaders and even very young advocates. The point was not only to fund organizations, but to recognize leadership potential early and help it grow. This was especially important because climate progress depends on people who can carry ideas across decades. The caveat is that this approach relies heavily on judgment, intuition and relationships, which can be harder to quantify than project-based grants.
The session presented sunsetting a foundation as a proactive mission strategy rather than a failure of fiscal management. Spending down allowed capital to move with urgency into current climate and social challenges. At the same time, participants acknowledged that when a foundation exits, it creates a funding gap. That made preparation essential: supporting reserves, strengthening grantee resilience and encouraging others to step into the space.
Hope Was Framed as Preparedness Not Optimism Alone
The discussion avoided easy optimism. Instead, hope was described through readiness: funding convenings, leadership development, data, coordination and operating reserves so organizations can act when opportunity windows open. This “workmanlike” approach treated future crises or openings as inevitable and emphasized preparing grantees to respond. The caveat is that this kind of work may be less visible than signature projects, but it is critical to long-term movement capacity.
Quiet Work Can Be Strategically Powerful
A final insight was that visibility is not always required for impact. Participants argued that anonymous or low-profile giving can still be dignified, strategic and effective. In a culture focused on storytelling and brand-building, the session suggested that some climate work may be more effective when done quietly, especially when the goal is to support others rather than claim credit.
Overall, the presentation positioned the Super South as a place where climate impact is built through durable systems, trusted local institutions and patient leadership investment. The strongest throughline was that capital itself is temporary, but when stewarded into buildings, organizations, people and preparedness, it can create lasting climate capacity across the region.
No Comments