MacKenzie Scott and the Case for a Nobel Peace Prize

------

(Renewal News Research Team) 04/07/2025

-----

In an era where wealth accumulation often dominates headlines, MacKenzie Scott has emerged as a striking outlier. Over the past five years, she has donated an estimated $20 billion of her personal fortune to over 2,400 nonprofits worldwide, quietly and efficiently. MacKenzie Scott likely stands out as the person who has made the most philanthropic donations over any five-year period in history, especially in terms of the direct and rapid disbursement of personal wealth. Her giving has reshaped philanthropy, empowered grassroots organisations, and advanced the causes of racial equity, public health, education, gender justice, and economic opportunity.

And yet, despite the scale and ambition of her work, Scott has not been seriously considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. Why? And what would it take for her to be recognised on the world stage as a laureate?

A New Model of Giving

MacKenzie Scott's approach defies traditional philanthropy. She gives unrestricted grants, often unsolicited, trusting organisations to know best how to serve their communities. Her process sidesteps bureaucracy and empowers local leaders, particularly women, Indigenous groups, and people of colour. Her ethos is grounded in humility, equity, and systemic change, not legacy building or control.

Her model is not only refreshing, it is transformative. It decentralises power, amplifies the voices of marginalised individuals, and provides sustained support to the very organisations most often left behind by conventional funders. In doing so, Scott has helped catalyse movements, stabilise institutions, and empower changemakers across the globe.

The Nobel Gap

Despite these achievements, the Nobel Peace Prize has historically favoured direct conflict resolution, diplomacy, and high-profile activism. Past winners have included heads of state, political dissidents, and international organisations. Rarely has the committee recognised those who work indirectly through structural transformation, particularly those who do so without seeking the spotlight.

Scott’s philanthropy, while peace-promoting, is not framed explicitly as peacebuilding. She avoids public platforms, shuns media attention, and focuses on action over advocacy. This low profile, combined with the indirect nature of her contributions to peace, places her outside the traditional lens of the Nobel Committee.

What It Would Take

To be seriously considered for the Nobel Peace Prize, MacKenzie Scott would likely need to evolve from a transformative donor into a visible architect of peace.

First, she could explicitly connect her giving to peacebuilding frameworks, funding efforts in post-conflict recovery, refugee resettlement, or grassroots reconciliation. A global initiative linking equity and peace could place her work squarely within the realm of the Nobel Prize.

Second, Scott would need to take on a more public leadership role. Nobel laureates are often spokespersons for movements. While she may prefer quiet impact, a strategic public voice through speeches, global campaigns, or coalitions would help amplify her influence.

Third, she could champion a new global institution. Just as Muhammad Yunus founded the Grameen Bank and won the Nobel for pioneering microfinance, Scott could launch a trust-based international fund focused on peace through equity, uplifting grassroots organisations worldwide.

The Case for Recognition

At its core, peace is not only the absence of war, but also the presence of justice, opportunity, and dignity. MacKenzie Scott’s philanthropy directly fosters these conditions. Her work reduces inequality, strengthens civil society, and fortifies communities from the inside out.

If the Nobel Peace Prize is to remain relevant in a changing world, it must evolve to recognise the new architects of peace, those who build from below, empower without fanfare and shift power to the margins. In this light, MacKenzie Scott is one of the most deserving figures of our time.

She may not seek the prize. But perhaps that is exactly why she should receive it.