"
Will your company be part of their story or will it be left behind?
Saumya Aggarwal is a social entrepreneur, peacebuilder and an international trainer. She co-founded Youth for Peace International (YfPI) to build capacities in youth, introduce community development and do advocacy work in the field. She has worked as coordinator for Asia with the United Network of Young Peacebuilders (UNOY). Other experience includes facilitating global and local training in volatile zones like Jammu and Kashmir and North-Eastern India and in the policy arena where she brought peace components to the Gujarat youth policy. Saumya Aggarwal is a former IPYP Youth Engagement Coordinator.
Young people are being squeezed out of traditional funding streams just as they hold unprecedented economic power as workers, consumers, and entrepreneurs. Youth-led organisations are losing access to grants and political space even as Gen Z is on track to control about 12–12.6 trillion dollars in annual spending by 2030. Young people are shaping which companies succeed and which are boycotted. This is the paradox at the heart of our global moment, and an invitation to the private sector to invest in youth initiatives.
On one side, youth-led organisations are doing some of the most vital peacebuilding and reconciliation work in their communities. They transform local conflicts, counter hate speech and misinformation, support survivors of violence, and create livelihood alternatives that pull young people away from conflict. Yet they are paying a steep price: shrinking international aid, restrictive laws such as India’s Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA)[1], and persistent stereotypes that paint youth as 'too risky' to invest in or 'too inexperienced.' Over 19,000 NGOs in India alone have lost FCRA licenses since 2014, including many working on peace and social cohesion.
On the other side, young people are using their spending power to reward brands that align with their values and to avoid those that do harm. 81% of Gen Z have changed purchasing decisions based on a company’s behaviour, and 53% have participated in boycotts[2]. They are not passive beneficiaries waiting for aid, they are agents of change reshaping global markets in real time.
These two trends are not contradictory; they are complementary. If companies step up to finance and partner with youth-led peacebuilding, they can simultaneously improve their brand loyalty among young consumers, reduce business risks associated with instability, and can expand and diversify the funding available to young peacebuilders alongside traditional development assistance. And crucially, they can do this while achieving quantifiable returns on investment.
Across conflict-affected and polarised contexts in the Global South, youth-led organisations are doing extraordinary work. In Kashmir, young people are building inter-community dialogue platforms. In the Bangsamoro region in the Philippines, youth collectives are mediating ethnic tensions and creating joint livelihood opportunities. In Somalia, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and beyond, young people are preventing recruitment into armed groups, supporting survivors of violence, and rebuilding trust where states and formal institutions cannot reach. Yet the funding landscape for this work is collapsing.
Global funding for peacebuilding has become increasingly risk-averse and bureaucratic. Bilateral donors are withdrawing from development assistance and investing more in militarisation. Multilateral institutions are consolidating resources toward large-scale projects in predictable contexts. Relying on traditional donors means engaging with short-term, project-based funding locked into rigid compliance frameworks that favour large, established NGOs over young peacebuilders.
Over and above these government restrictions and legal constraints are affecting civil society. India’s FCRA is one of the most recent examples, but similar trends are emerging across Turkey, Ethiopia, Egypt, and other regions where youth-led peacebuilding is most urgent. Originally introduced in 2010 to regulate foreign contributions to NGOs in India, FCRA license cancellations accelerated after 2014. The 2020 Amendment cut the share of foreign funds that can be spent on administrative costs from 50% to 20%, required all funds to route through a single bank branch, and eliminated the provision for sub-granting.
Youth-led organisations, which often relied on sub-grants from larger organisations, saw an important funding pathway restricted. Young peacebuilders who were paid through foreign grants could no longer receive those salaries due to the administrative cost cap. Core activities like participatory research, capacity building, and community dialogue were essential to peacebuilding and could no longer be supported by foreign sources. Even basic operational costs like rent, insurance, and safety measures became impossible to cover. For some organisations, these pressures have contributed to scaling back activities and greater caution around politically sensitive work.
Even where regulations are not restrictive, institutional bias against youth-led initiatives persists. Many investors, foundations, and donors continue to view them as 'too risky,' 'too inexperienced,' or 'too small' to support. This perception gap persists despite evidence showing that youth-led peacebuilding often achieves higher community trust, faster contextual adaptation, and more sustainable outcomes than externally designed programs. Young peacebuilders cannot access funding without a track record or institutional recognition but they cannot build those without funding.
While funding streams for youth-led organisations are narrowing, young people’s economic power is surging in ways that are reshaping global markets. Multiple analyses estimate that by 2030, Gen Z will control approximately $12 (NielsenIQ/World Data Lab), with some estimates ranging up to 12.6 trillion (Bank of America Institute) in annual global consumer spending roughly 18–19% of total global expenditure[3]. That makes Gen Z the most economically powerful generation in history, outspending baby boomers and driving trends across fashion, technology, food, and energy sectors.
But their power lies not just in the size of their wallets but in how they use it. Unlike previous generations, Gen Z is value driven.
When they see a brand linked to human rights abuses, environmental destruction, or conflict complicit supply chains, they don’t quietly switch but they mobilise. They create content, organise online campaigns, and spark global boycotts that can lead to long-term brand damage. Conversely, when a company supports causes they care about like climate justice, gender equality, racial equity, peace, or youth leadership, they reward it with loyalty and organic advocacy that money cannot buy.
Geopolitical instability and local violence directly affect companies’ operational and financial performance. Businesses in fragile or conflict-affected regions face shutdowns, disruptions in transport, rising security costs, asset damage, and workforce displacement. If a company is seen to profit from conflict or align with perpetrators, boycotts can cause lasting brand harm. The Pathways for Peace study (UN & World Bank, 2018) estimated that scaled-up preventive action could generate US$5–70 billion in global savings annually.
Data now show that community anchored peacebuilding work, especially when youth-led, measurably reduces violence and enables stable environments for business.
In many contexts, private sector funding can provide an additional avenue of support alongside international donor grants. Especially in India and other countries with restrictive foreign funding regimes, international donors can face significant regulatory barriers. Companies, however, may be able to directly fund youth groups through domestic CSR budgets, avoiding some of the complications associated with the foreign funding regulations. A company can also set up a domestic foundation to provide flexible, unrestricted funding to youth-led groups. Where partnerships are designed with flexibility and longer-term support in mind, this can keep resources local, removes foreign funding complications, and allows multi-year support that covers essentials like salaries, rent, safety, and organisational development.
From a youth organisation’s standpoint, a well-designed corporate partnership can be transformative. In some contexts, domestic corporate funding may offer a different compliance pathway from international funding and create opportunities for longer-term support. These partnerships also deliver non-financial value focusing on mentorship, technical expertise, visibility, and access to networks. At the same time, the accessibility and flexibility of these partnerships can depend on how they are structured, including their reporting requirements, funding cycles, and alignment with corporate priorities. When designed around the needs and realities of youth-led organisations, they can provide an important source of funding.
Young people are already reshaping global markets. They are directing capital, influence, and talent toward companies and causes they believe in. They are building the communities and economies of the future.
The question for business leaders is simple:
Will your company be part of their story or will it be left behind?
[1] India’s Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) is a law that regulates how individuals and organizations in India can receive and use money or other contributions from foreign sources.
[2] "New study reveals Gen Z purchasing power could be a force for ethical labor," Thomson Reuters Institute (July 2025) https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/institute/articles/gen-z-purchasing-power
[3] NielsenIQ / World Data Lab “Spend Z” report- https://25336566.fs1.hubspotusercontent-eu1.net/hubfs/25336566/Spend%20Z/NIQ_GenZ%20Report%2017FL.pdf