What do people think about after building more wealth than they could ever spend? Alongside passing assets to family, they may establish a way for their wealth to keep serving society after their own lives end. This is what I find compelling about public-interest foundations.

What arrangements have the founders of globally influential companies actually chosen? I looked beyond Bill Gates to Elon Musk, Google's founders and Sam Altman. Their choices include foundations, companies and commitments to future giving.

Not everyone establishes the same kind of foundation

An organization called a Foundation does not necessarily operate under rules equivalent to Japan's public-interest incorporated foundations. Some philanthropic organizations use a company structure known as an LLC. Here, I distinguish the entities using their official explanations and public records.

This table is neither a ranking of donations nor an assessment of which activities are best. It compares what organizational vehicles people use to put wealth to work for society. Sources are linked in the sections below.

Gates: a foundation need not last forever

The Gates Foundation began in 2000 as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and has addressed issues including infectious diseases and poverty. What particularly caught my attention this time was its planned ending.

The foundation's official account explains that in 2025 Gates decided to donate virtually all his remaining wealth over approximately the next two decades and close the foundation at the end of 2045. Maintaining and investing an endowment indefinitely is not the only option: resources can also be deployed intensively within a defined period.

The purpose of a foundation is not simply to prolong the life of a legal entity. Decisions about when and how much to spend on a problem also shape the foundation's lifespan. Keeping an organization alive and leaving a lasting social impact are not necessarily the same thing. This is an important consideration when designing a foundation.

Bezos: separate purposes for the environment, housing and education

Jeff Bezos's Bezos Earth Fund, launched in 2020, announced an initial US$10 billion commitment to work including protecting and restoring the natural world. The Day 1 Families Fund also makes grants to organizations supporting families experiencing homelessness.

The similarly named Bezos Family Foundation can cause confusion. Its official account identifies Mike and Jackie Bezos, Jeff's parents, and their family as its founders. Treating everything bearing the Bezos name as one foundation established by Jeff alone would misrepresent the arrangements.

Environmental protection and family housing require different expertise and different measures of success. Allocating resources to separate initiatives and organizations according to purpose suggests an approach familiar to people who have built businesses.

Musk: the Musk Foundation does exist

Elon Musk also has the Musk Foundation. Its official website is remarkably brief, but lists renewable energy, human space exploration, pediatric research, science and engineering education, and the development of safe AI for humanity as grant priorities.

It is interesting that some grant priorities overlap with fields for which Musk is known in business. The existence of a foundation alone, however, does not establish the motives or effectiveness of particular donations. Which activities receive money, how much they receive and what results follow are separate questions.

Google's founders: corporate philanthropy and family foundations

In a 2014 post on Google's official blog, Larry Page explained that his family foundation would give US$15 million toward tackling Ebola, separately from Google's donations. The Carl Victor Page Memorial Foundation's public tax-filing records also identify Page as an officer.

Sergey Brin has the Sergey Brin Family Foundation. ASAP's official explanation describes research support connected to the foundation in the field of Parkinson's disease.

A company donating as part of its activities and a founder transferring personal wealth to another organization involve different sources of funds and different decision-makers. Looking beyond the shorthand of “Google doing philanthropy” reveals distinct roles for the company and its founders.

Altman: a giving pledge is different from establishing a foundation

Sam Altman and Oliver Mulherin joined the Giving Pledge in 2024. This is a commitment to give most of their wealth to charitable causes during their lifetimes or through their wills. They describe an emphasis on technology that helps create abundance for people.

Signing the pledge does not itself establish a personal foundation. This source alone proves neither that Altman has such a foundation nor that he does not. OpenAI's organizational arrangements should not be conflated with a vehicle for giving away his personal wealth.

The Jobs family and Zuckerberg: choosing an LLC

The sources reviewed here do not provide a basis for a definitive conclusion about whether Steve Jobs himself had a foundation. One publicly visible organization is Emerson Collective, established by his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs. It should be distinguished as her own initiative.

Emerson Collective combines philanthropy with investment, and its official terms of use name the entity as Emerson Collective, LLC. Although it addresses social issues such as education and the environment, its legal vehicle differs from a Japanese public-interest incorporated foundation.

Similarly, Zuckerberg and Chan's CZI is identified in its official documentation as Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, LLC, separate from Meta. CZI also publishes an explanation of its endowment investment approach for supporting long-term philanthropy.

Zuckerberg's initiative was one of the inspirations for my earlier article on Tax Planning Using Public Interest Corporations. Drawing inspiration from philanthropy overseas, however, is different from reproducing its legal and tax arrangements in Japan. More than the name, what matters is which entity owns the assets and under what rules those assets are used.

From how much wealth to leave to how that wealth should work

This comparison shows that wealthy founders do not all establish the same type of foundation. Options include foundation grants, investment and giving through companies, support for existing organizations, and commitments to future donations. Some arrangements aim to endure; others aim to spend resources within a defined period.

As a tax accountant, I am naturally interested in the tax effects. Public information does not, however, justify assuming that each individual began with a tax-saving motive. Tax rules that encourage public-benefit expenditure and a donor's personal motivations should be considered separately.

Planning a public-interest foundation in Japan likewise requires an integrated view of donated assets, continuing income, decision-makers and public-benefit activities. Donated company shares may provide dividends to fund activities, but shareholding restrictions and tax conditions need examination. Assets transferred to a foundation do not remain money the family can freely use.

Wealth built during one's life can then support education, research and culture for subsequent generations. Leaving a mechanism that works for society beyond a human lifespan is what I find beautiful about foundations.

Read about Japanese founders, public figures and their foundations

Based on information as of October 10, 2026. This article draws on official organizational materials and public records. Foreign organizational structures and Japanese public-interest incorporated foundations are not the same legal institution.