2026 giving data on why people fund nearby, checkable work — and one confirmed meal count in Milton Keynes — for brands still briefing a globe-sized slogan.
A world-saving slogan asks people to fund a map. A shirt in Milton Keynes funded a meal they can name.
That is not a smaller slogan. It is a different brief. Brands still open purpose work on a globe. The 2026 giving data says people already fund nearby, checkable work.
This page is the local-versus-global cut. The 2026 maps live on why people support the causes they support. The choice mechanism lives on how people choose a cause. The children-and-food-poverty ledger lives on food poverty and feeding children. This page does not reprint any of them.
This journal is published by Zenko Protocol, an engagement-and-impact platform. Not a product tour. Named 2025–2026 sources only. One confirmed public programme: 2,000 meals from the MK Dons Shop for Good programme.
TL;DR: A world-saving slogan asks people to fund a map. A shirt in Milton Keynes funded a meal they can name. CAF’s World Giving Report 2026 finds people much more likely to support local charities (56%) than those working across many countries (22%). People who recognise positive local charity impact are twice as likely to donate, and three times more generous as a share of income. That 2× / 3× is the World Giving Report pair. Separately, CAF’s UK Local Giving Report 2026 finds people who see positive local impact donate at all at 64% against 46%, donate locally at 51% against 26%, and volunteer at 16% against 5%. The confirmed count is 2,000 meals from MK Dons Shop for Good × Surplus to Purpose. This spoke is the local-versus-global cut. It is not a guilt appeal, not a shirt-sale restage, and not a second children-data ledger.
The brief still starts with the globe
Most purpose work still opens on a multi-country slogan. People already fund what they can see.
The globe-sized brief is easy to approve. Logo-fit. An ESG slide. A climate film that looks like leadership in the room that commissioned it. None of those tests ask whether the audience will carry a cause they can see nearby.
How people choose — care, then nearby work, then trust that the money becomes a visible result — lives on how people choose a cause. Why a climate slide is concern, not a donation, lives on why people support the causes they support. This page stays on the geography of the gift.
A local act is not a reduced version of a world-saving line. It is the brief the 2026 data already chose. The public proof on this site is one city and one meal count. That is enough to read the cut. It is not a claim that this programme beat a named global campaign in a lift test.
People already fund nearby work
People are much more likely to support charities that work locally to them (56%) or nationally in their country (55%) than those working across many countries (22%).
That is the World Giving Report 2026 (PR 3 June 2026; more than 60,000 people, 105 countries; behaviour in 2025). Share of people. Not pounds. Not a ranking of the world’s favourite cause.
The same press line carries a caveat, not a reversal. Donors in higher-income countries, including in Europe, give a higher share to charities that work in many countries than donors in lower-income countries. Local and national still win the mass. The 22% brief is the globe-sized one.
A labelled US figure sits next to that, not on top of it. Fidelity Charitable’s 2026 Giving Report, covering calendar 2025 donor-advised-fund grants, finds 54% of grant volume stayed in the donor’s home state. Dollars are a different unit: 38% of grant dollars, $7bn. That is US DAF granting, not a share of people, and not a UK finding. Do not flatten the units.
The children-and-food-poverty numbers that travel with this lane live on food poverty and feeding children. This page stays on where the gift goes.
Seeing local impact changes the gift
People who recognise the positive impact of charities on local communities are twice as likely to donate, and three times more generous as a share of income.
That is the World Giving Report 2026 Donor Insights pair. It is a global association between seeing local charity impact and giving more. It is not the UK Local Giving pair, and it is not mashed into one line here.
The same Donor Insights page carries two more lines, still World Giving Report, still not the UK study. People who recognise that local impact are also twice as likely to get involved in making positive changes to society, and three times more likely to have donated to all three charity types — local, national, and multi-country.
Visibility is the scarce asset, especially in Europe. Six in ten people globally (62%) say charities have had a fairly or very positive impact in their local community. In Europe, almost half (48%) say charities make no difference locally, or that it is impossible to tell.
Belonging is a third finding. Do not file it under “show them a local video.” Countries where more than 80% of people feel a very or fairly strong sense of belonging to their local community give 1.7% of income on average. Countries where less than half feel that belonging give 0.6%. That is a roughly threefold difference in income share (World Giving Report 2026). It is belonging. It is not “seeing impact.”
In the UK, seeing local impact changes who gives at all
A separate UK study. Different tests. Do not merge.
The CAF UK Local Giving Report 2026 (published 20 May 2026; YouGov Plc; N=12,913; calendar 2025) finds that people who see a positive local impact of charities donate at all at 64%, against 46% of those who have not seen any impact or think it has been negative. They are twice as likely to donate locally (51% vs 26%) and three times as likely to volunteer (16% vs 5%). The Civil Society write-up of the same day carries those three pairs.
That 2× / 3× is donate-locally and volunteer. It is not the World Giving Report’s 2× donate / 3× share of income.
The bases are named. People who see a very or fairly positive impact of charities in their local community: N=6,439. People who see no difference, don’t know, or think the impact is negative: N=6,474. About half of UK adults (50%) think charities have made a very or fairly positive local impact. Another 48% don’t know, or think charities have made no difference.
This is not a constituency-map paper. Kensington versus Sheffield Hallam is a different argument about income-share and place. The commercial line here is simpler. In the UK, seeing a local charity do something people recognise is associated with giving at all, giving nearby, and giving time. A purpose brief that never shows a nearby act is asking the 46% / 26% / 5% column to carry a slogan.
One confirmed act — 2,000 meals
The public proof on this site is 2,000 meals in one city. Not a restage. Not a scale-up.
MK Dons Shop for Good, working with Surplus to Purpose, funded 2,000
meals of fresh fruit and vegetables in Milton Keynes. The club’s 17
July 2026 release is the primary record (MK
Dons). Two on-site sources then disagree on the hub count.
llms.txt (last reviewed 22 July 2026) names four Milton
Keynes hubs. Homepage case-study copy, captured 20 August 2026, says
three schools in the Milton Keynes City area. The sources disagree. This
page does not pick a marketing number, and it does not list the
sites.
That 2,000-meal figure is partner evidence of a physical act. It is
not an on-chain participation record, and the chain does not become the
meal. Surplus to Purpose is the UK partner named on
/causes/. The site says a US cause partner is pending. This
page does not invent one, and it does not add a household-name charity
to fill the gap.
This is a meal count. It is not a claim that the programme ended hunger, improved a named child’s outcomes, or can be scaled to every child in the UK. It is not a restage of the shirt-sale post, and it does not invent units sold, shirt colour, broadcast coverage, or fan quotes. Other football food-poverty programmes are not this site’s proof, and they are not restaged here.
The lane this act sits on — children, food banks, poverty relief as three CAF pots — lives on food poverty and feeding children. See the journal post for the act. Then stop.
What a brand should do with this
If the brief needs the audience to carry the cause, fund a nearby, checkable act. Do not invent a scale-up.
A short checklist. Not a product demo. Not a second copy of how people choose a cause.
- Start from the geography. Local 56%, national 55%, multi-country 22%. A globe-sized slogan is the 22% brief. The maps that tell you which cause the audience already funds live on why people support the causes they support.
- Show local impact, and keep the two studies apart. World Giving Report: 2× donate, 3× share of income. UK Local Giving: 64% vs 46% donate at all, 51% vs 26% donate locally, 16% vs 5% volunteer. Decks that mash those into one line are already wrong.
- Do not substitute belonging for a video, or a video for a meal. The 1.7% vs 0.6% income-share line is belonging. Seeing impact is a different test. A checkable physical act is the thing people can name.
- Show how money became a physical act. 2,000 meals is the public proof. Hub counts still disagree. Partner evidence is not a participation record.
- Let the participant choose among the five cause lanes people can choose. Local visibility is a frame, not a sixth lane. Do not invent a US partner, a meal-count forecast, or a national scale-up from one city.
The brief is working if the audience can name the physical act and recognise it as nearby. That is not a cost-per-lead, and it is not a children-helped dashboard.
FAQ
Do people give more to local or global causes?
Local and national, by a wide margin — not “everyone is local.” World Giving Report 2026: local 56%, national 55%, multi-country 22%. Higher-income countries send a larger share to multi-country charities. That is a caveat, not the mass pattern.
Are the two 2× / 3× findings the same study?
No. World Giving Report 2026 Donor Insights: people who recognise positive local charity impact are twice as likely to donate and three times more generous as a share of income. UK Local Giving 2026: 64% vs 46% donate at all; 51% vs 26% donate locally; 16% vs 5% volunteer. Different studies. Different tests. Do not mash them.
What has actually been delivered?
2,000 meals of fresh fruit and vegetables, MK Dons Shop for Good × Surplus to Purpose. The club release is the primary record. On-site sources disagree on the hub count — four versus three — and this page does not pick a number. That is a meal count, not a claim the programme ended hunger.
What should a brand do first?
Read this cut against the maps on why people support the causes they support, the mechanism on how people choose a cause, and the lane data on food poverty and feeding children. Show a physical act nearby. Point people to the five cause lanes people can choose. Do not add a sixth lane.
People already fund nearby work. Catch the brief up.
A world-saving slogan asks people to fund a map. The commercial mistake is briefing the 22% option and calling it leadership.
- People already fund nearby work: local 56%, national 55%, multi-country 22%.
- Two 2× / 3× studies. Keep them apart. Belonging is a third finding.
- One programme is confirmed: 2,000 meals. Partner evidence of that act is not an on-chain record. Hub counts still disagree.
See the five cause lanes people can choose, or use Talk to us in the site navigation if the next step is a conversation with Zenko Protocol.
Continue through the Causes People Choose series
- Why people support the causes they support (and why brands still pick the wrong one)
- How people choose a cause
- Food poverty and feeding children
- Local vs global: why a shirt in Milton Keynes beat a world-saving slogan
- Why education and schools keep getting support
- Trees, rewilding, and what people think they are funding
- Carbon offsetting without the greenwash script
- Oceans and biodiversity: the cause people name, the proof they rarely get