Skip to content
We Mean Business Coalition Inc at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

We Mean Business Coalition Inc

Through unprecedented collaboration, we catalyze business action and drive ambitious policy to halve emissions by 2030 and accelerate an inclusive transition to a net-zero economy by 2050, at the latest.

$8.4M
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
4
States reached
$615k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2021 to 2024.

Environment$10MCommunity Improvement$1.4M
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $1,689,876, the rows itemized in this filing. The $8,390,212 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $6,700,336 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k3 grants · $500k
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.2M
$275,000
Median grant
4
States reached
$22M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
CERES INC$614,876
B TEAM HEADQUARTERS INC$300,000
BUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY$275,000
CALSTART INC$200,000
CE BUYERS INSTITUTE$150,000
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION$150,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY21–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 85% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%CERES INC: $1.1M → 16%BUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: $549k → 10%CALSTART INC: $200k → 14%LEADERS' QUEST FOUNDATION: $848k → 13%B TEAM HEADQUARTERS INC: $596k → 17%CE BUYERS INSTITUTE: $450k → 14%ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE: $185k → 12%CERES INC: $795k → 16%BUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: $492k → 10%CALSTART INC: $200k → 14%FUTURE STEWARDS INC: $448k → 13%B TEAM HEADQUARTERS INC: $521k → 17%CE BUYERS INSTITUTE: $150k → 14%CERES INC: $699k → 16%BUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: $375k → 10%B TEAM HEADQUARTERS INC: $475k → 17%INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION: $150k → 14%CERES INC: $615k → 16%BUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: $275k → 10%B TEAM HEADQUARTERS INC: $300k → 17%INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION: $150k → 14%ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS: $943k → 17%FOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATION: $25k → 14%ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS: $943k → 17%ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $10k → 17%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Grants abroad, by region: $6.7M on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 5 regions. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$5.4M · 81% · 8 grants

Stated purpose: GRANT FOR PROJECT SUPPORT · GRANT FOR GENERAL SUPPORT

North America (Canada and Mexico)$750k · 11% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: GRANT FOR PROJECT SUPPORT

East Asia and the Pacific$335k · 5% · 3 grants

Stated purpose: GRANT FOR PROJECT SUPPORT

Sub-Saharan Africa$120k · 2% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: GRANT FOR PROJECT SUPPORT

South Asia$50k · 1% · 1 grant

Stated purpose: GRANT FOR PROJECT SUPPORT

How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

97%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$9.4M · 7 repeat orgs$320k to everyone else

7 repeat relationships: 6 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

7
4

Total granted

$9.4M
$320k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-18%
+26%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’21’22’23’24
EnvironmentEducationInternationalOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • BF
    BUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
    4× · 2021–2024 · $1.7M · revenue +13%
  • CB
    CE BUYERS INSTITUTE
    2× · 2023–2024 · $600k · revenue +56%
  • CI
    CALSTART INC
    2× · 2023–2024 · $400k · revenue +189%

Funded once

  • Rocky Mountain Institutegraduated
    one grant, 2023 · $185k · revenue +26%
  • WG
    WORLD GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL INCgraduated
    one grant, 2021 · $100k · revenue +80%
  • FT
    FOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2023 · $25k · revenue -51%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Climate Catalyst Inc

Climate catalyst sparks collective action to tackle the biggest climate challenges we face today: cutting emissions in heavy industries.

Environment
2
The Climate Group Inc

Climate group advances climate action by mobilizing business and government leadership to drive systemic decarbonization across energy, transport, and industry, while engaging the public through large-scale convenings and global platforms.…

Environment
3
E3G Third Generation Environmentalism

E3g is a leading international not-for-profit think tank specialising in climate diplomacy harnessing expertise in the politics and economics of climate change.

Environment
4
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions Inc

The nonpartisan center for climate and energy solutions works to secure a safe and stable climate by accelerating the global transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and a thriving, just, and resilient economy. for over 25 years,…

Environment
5
Bank Climate Advocates

Bank Climate Advocates (BCA) combats climate change and its adverse effects primarily by using legal advocacy and action to align public financial institutions' investment policies and practices with the 1.5 degrees C warming limitation…

Environment
6
Terraset

Terraset uses philanthropic capital to purchase permanent, high-quality carbon removal. we pool donations from individuals, foundations, family offices, and donor advised funds, and make strategic purchases of high-quality carbon removal…

Environment
7
Advocates for Climate Innovation
Philanthropy
8
Cdp North America Inc

Cdp north america, inc. 's ("cdp-na") vision for the future is a thriving economy that works for people and planet in the long term. we focus investors and companies on taking urgent action to build a truly sustainable economy by measuring…

Environment
9
Climate Breakthrough Inc

To launch breakthrough climate mitigation efforts by identifying, supporting, and unleashing innovative leaders with transformative strategies.

Human Services
10
CarbonPlan

Improving the transparency and scientific integrity of climate solutions through open data and tools.

Environment
11
Sustainable World Inc

See schedule o part i for description of the organizations mission.

Environment
12
The Climate Center

The Climate Center is a climate and energy policy nonprofit working to rapidly reduce climate pollution at scale, starting in California.

Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Environmental Defense Fund Incorporated; the most unlike its peers is Forest Trends Association. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

12 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
1
Early backer (in before they grew)
12/12
Grantees still filing
7/12
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

CERES INC: $3,183,876 · EnvironmentCERES INCB TEAM HEADQUARTERS INC: $1,892,000 · EnvironmentB TEAM HEADQUARTERS INCCE BUYERS INSTITUTE: $600,000 · EnvironmentCE BUYERS INSTITUTETHE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC: $300,000 · Environment+3 more: $135,000 · EnvironmentROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC: $1,885,334 · PhilanthropyROCKEFELLER PHILAN…BUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: $1,690,000 · EducationBUSINESS FOR SOC…LQ FOUNDATION: $1,296,000 · InternationalLQ FOUNDATIO…CALSTART INC: $400,000 · OtherRocky Mountain Institute: $185,000 · Other
Environment$6,110,876Philanthropy$1,885,334Education$1,690,000International$1,296,000Other$585,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetCERES INC: $3,183,876 over 4y, 3.4% of budgetB TEAM HEADQUARTERS INC: $1,892,000 over 4y, 14% of budgetROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS INC: $1,885,334 over 2y, 0.2% of budgetBUSINESS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: $1,690,000 over 4y, 1.6% of budgetLQ FOUNDATION: $1,296,000 over 2y, 48% of budgetCE BUYERS INSTITUTE: $600,000 over 2y, 8.9% of budgetCALSTART INC: $400,000 over 2y, 0.1% of budgetTHE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION INC: $300,000 over 2y, 0.7% of budgetRocky Mountain Institute: $185,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetWORLD GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL INC: $100,000 over 1y, 2.9% of budgetFOREST TRENDS ASSOCIATION: $25,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND INCORPORATED: $10,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Tides FoundationClimateworks Foundati…National Philanthropi…American Online Givin…Fidelity Investments …
Tides FoundationCA14.3× affinity5 shared granteesties to 4 of 4Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Tides Foundation · Climateworks Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization We Mean Business Coalition Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from We Mean Business Coalition Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%19%38%56%75%share of the org’s income from government →median 0%
  • Ceres Inc: 0% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
0rely on government for over half their income
⤢ axis zoomed · 0–75%
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to We Mean Business Coalition Inc?

Find your warmest path to We Mean Business Coalition Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 12 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on We Mean Business Coalition’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home