This is the second full installment in our series on what the LEGO ecosystem does beyond selling sets. In the first article, we looked at LEGO Education — a commercial education business within the LEGO Group. This time, we are moving to an organization that is frequently confused with it: the LEGO Foundation.

The distinction matters. The LEGO Foundation is not a department of the LEGO Group, it is not part of LEGO Education, and it is not simply the company’s corporate social responsibility program. It is a separate Danish corporate foundation with its own board, assets, funding model and strategy.

The LEGO Foundation is not the LEGO Group

The LEGO Foundation describes itself as an independent Danish corporate foundation working to support children. Its role is unusual because it combines ownership with philanthropy. On one side, it is a co-owner of the LEGO Group and has a long-term responsibility connected to that ownership. On the other, it funds work focused on children’s learning, development and well-being.

That means at least three entities need to be kept separate. The LEGO Group is the commercial company that develops and sells LEGO products and operates businesses such as LEGO Education. KIRKBI is the Kirk Kristiansen family’s holding and investment company and the majority owner of the LEGO Group. The LEGO Foundation is a foundation with its own stake in the LEGO Group and its own philanthropic activity.

This distinction is central to the whole series. When the LEGO Foundation funds a humanitarian or education program, it does not automatically mean that the LEGO Group itself runs that program. In many cases, implementation is handled by another organization entirely — for example the International Rescue Committee, BRAC, or a public-sector partner.

A foundation that owns 25% of the LEGO Group

The most important structural fact is that the LEGO Foundation owns 25% of the LEGO Group. The remaining ownership sits within the Kirk Kristiansen family’s structures, principally through KIRKBI.

This is not a symbolic holding. KIRKBI states in its 2025 annual reporting that the foundation primarily finances its activities through its 25% ownership interest in the LEGO Group. In practical terms, the commercial success of the LEGO Group directly affects the financial capacity of the foundation.

That makes the model different from a company that simply sets an annual CSR budget or makes a discretionary donation to an affiliated charity. Here, philanthropy is structurally connected to ownership.

Scale: about DKK 1.7 billion in grants in 2025

According to KIRKBI’s 2025 reporting, the LEGO Foundation awarded approximately DKK 1.7 billion in grants during the year. Over the previous five years, it distributed around DKK 10.5 billion in total.

Those figures put the foundation well beyond the scale of a small corporate giving program. It has the resources to support multi-year international partnerships, research, system-level education initiatives and newer approaches such as impact investing.

But grant size is not the same thing as impact. A USD 100 million commitment tells us how much money has been allocated. It does not by itself prove how many children benefited, how strong the outcomes were, or whether the results lasted. Throughout this series, we will keep funding, reach, reported outcomes and independently measured impact separate.

The foundation usually does not run programs itself

The LEGO Foundation’s model is primarily based on funding and partnering rather than building its own operating network in every country. It brings capital, long-term commitment, knowledge and support for evidence-building. Its partners bring local expertise, implementation capacity and access to communities and public systems.

That matters most in humanitarian and education settings. If a project operates in refugee communities or local school systems, the foundation is generally not replacing organizations that already work there. It funds and supports partners with the infrastructure and experience to deliver the work.

So the shorthand “LEGO helps children in country X” is often too imprecise. A more accurate description may be that the LEGO Foundation funds or co-funds a program delivered by a named partner.

What the LEGO Foundation focuses on today

The foundation’s current strategy is more selective than the broad “Learning through Play” identity many readers may remember from earlier years. Its present areas of focus include children affected by conflict and crisis, children with special educational needs, work for children in Denmark, and impact investing.

Within special educational needs, the foundation highlights neurodivergent children, including children with autism and ADHD between the ages of 3 and 18. Its approach includes direct interventions, research, capacity-building and efforts aimed at changing education and social systems.

In Denmark, the foundation works with municipalities, education institutions and civil-society organizations. The country is both the foundation’s home context and a place where approaches can be developed, tested and studied at system level.

What that model looks like in practice

A few partnerships make the structure easier to understand.

PlayMatters is implemented by a consortium led by the International Rescue Committee. The LEGO Foundation renewed its support with a five-year commitment of USD 97 million, with an ambition to reach more than 5 million children across East Africa and the Middle East. That figure is a program target, not a completed result.

BRAC has worked with the LEGO Foundation since 2017, including through Play Labs for children living in crisis settings. In a newer phase of the partnership, the foundation committed USD 50 million. Again, the foundation is not the on-the-ground operator; it funds a partner with established local capacity.

In Denmark, Every Child’s Daycare is backed by DKK 100 million and involves 17 municipalities, approximately 2,240 pedagogical staff and around 112 daycare leaders as part of a broader effort to strengthen early childhood education and care.

The geography and operating models differ, but the pattern is consistent: the foundation finances work carried out with partners rather than building its own delivery structure everywhere.

Beyond grants: the move into impact investing

Grantmaking remains central to the LEGO Foundation, but it is no longer the only tool. The foundation has also moved into impact investing — investments designed to generate both measurable social outcomes and financial returns.

One of the most significant examples is a USD 100 million commitment to A-Street, an investment platform focused on education in the United States. The LEGO Foundation describes it as its first major investment of this kind.

The model matters because any financial returns remain within the foundation. They can be recycled into future grants or further impact investments. In theory, that allows part of the foundation’s capital to be used repeatedly rather than spent once.

The strategy has shifted toward fewer, larger partnerships

KIRKBI’s 2025 reporting also shows a shift in how the foundation allocates capital. Following a strategic review, the LEGO Foundation has been moving toward a smaller number of larger partnerships and placing more emphasis on approaches that can be measured, expanded and scaled.

This is important when reading older material. “Learning through Play” remains a major part of the foundation’s history and identity, but not every past initiative should be described as a current strategic priority. The organization’s portfolio and language have evolved.

How to judge impact without repeating promotional claims

Foundation reporting can easily blur four different things: money committed, intended reach, outcomes reported by partners, and impact independently measured.

If a program receives USD 97 million and aims to reach more than 5 million children, both figures matter — but they describe different things. The first is a funding commitment; the second is an ambition. Only implementation data can show how many children were actually reached and what happened afterward.

The foundation says it wants to put more emphasis on evidence, measurement and scalable approaches. That is meaningful, but it does not remove the need to examine where each number comes from. In later installments, we will separate LEGO Foundation figures, partner-reported results and independent evaluations whenever those are available.

Why this model matters in the wider LEGO ecosystem

The LEGO Foundation is a useful example of why this series does not treat “LEGO” as a single entity. The foundation belongs to the same family-controlled ecosystem, but it operates under different rules from the LEGO Group.

The LEGO Group runs commercial businesses. The LEGO Foundation uses its ownership position and its own assets to fund work for children. KIRKBI has a different ownership and investment role. Civil-society and public-sector partners often deliver the programs on the ground.

Only after separating those roles does it become possible to answer basic questions accurately: who funds a program, who operates it, who reports the outcomes, and how the work fits into the broader LEGO ecosystem.

A foundation, owner and grantmaker at the same time

The key takeaway is simple: the LEGO Foundation is not the charitable department of a toy company. It is a separate foundation that also owns 25% of the LEGO Group, funds long-term programs for children, works through major external partners, and is expanding into impact investing.

That structure will be a reference point for future installments. With it in place, we can look more closely at PlayMatters, BRAC, neurodiversity, public-system partnerships and impact investing without collapsing all of those activities into the vague idea that “LEGO” is doing them.