Adding to this, a recent study by Kiev School of Economics and Georgetown University found that the charitable behavior of billionaires is often linked to something else: the source of their wealth.

Findings from the study, entitled The Charity of the Extremely Wealthy, showed that self-made billionaires are between three and four times more likely to sign the Giving Pledge or be present in the Philanthropy Top 50 list of biggest pledges, compared to those who have inherited their wealth. This is unlikely to be driven by differences in demographic characteristics or in the networks of inherited and self-made billionaires, it said.

It is “impossible to generalize” the effect of self-made versus dynastic wealth on charitable behavior, according to Julie Shafer of Bank of the West. Individual philanthropists - billionaire or otherwise - have their own motivations, driven by their experiences, said Shafer, who is head of strategic philanthropy and purpose investing at Bank of the West Wealth Management. “Billionaires who are philanthropic have an enormous amount of leverage and, whatever their motivations, they have an obligation to be thoughtful with their giving because of the impact they will have,” she added.

While The Charity of the Extremely Wealthy study focused on the charitable behavior of billionaires, based on data from the Giving Pledge among other sources, some executives in the field of philanthropy have said that many of its findings resonate with what they have observed in their clients' behavior and through their own research.

“Our research results are generally consistent with findings presented in this report,” said Claire Costello, national philanthropic practice executive at US Trust. “In particular, we find that among millionaires and billionaires, entrepreneurs are more philanthropically engaged than those whose primary source of wealth is inherited,” Costello said.

“These donor types – entrepreneurs and dynastic wealthy – do exhibit different charitable characteristics and behaviors. For example, those whose wealth was inherited are more concerned with leaving a legacy and more likely to engage in testamentary giving than wealthy entrepreneur donors,” she added.

Barclays' 17th Wealth Insights report also noted that self-made individuals tend to have a different relationship with their wealth than those who inherited it.

“While both inheritors and entrepreneurs engage in philanthropy, their reasons for doing so can be slightly different,” said Emma Turner, head of client philanthropy services at Barclays Wealth and Investment Management.

“For inheritors, their philanthropy is part of how they protect and pass on their wealth and is a way of ensuring that family’s values are passed down through the generations,” Turner said. “Many successful entrepreneurs, who have seen their wealth increase over a relatively shorter period of time, may be more driven by a feeling of duty and responsibility to give back .”

Costello of US Trust shares similar views, and offered a couple of theories for this. In the case of dynastic wealth, for example, the current wealth holder generation may see itself as the steward of the family wealth for subsequent generations. It may also be true, she said, that dynastic wealth is more often than not transferred between generations “in a structured way” to preclude complete autonomy over it, as may be the case with wealthy first-generation entrepreneurs.

“Additionally, the increased emphasis on 'giving while living,' furthered in part by the Giving Pledge, has occurred relatively recently and concurrently with the aggregation of wealth by wealthy first-generation entrepreneurs who therefore may have earned their wealth in a different paradigm than inheritors – one in which there is greater donor awareness and philanthropic infrastructure, as well as greater cultural charitable expectation and mindset,” Costello said.

Industry implications

Given the proximity that financial advisors have to wealth deployment and structuring, it makes sense that the topic of philanthropy should be high on the agenda in their conversations with clients.

Even more so, as self-made wealth begins to overtake inherited wealth, it is important that wealth managers understand how this may impact clients' motives for giving, according to Turner.

“Recent years have seen a transformation of the wealth landscape, with wealth increasingly made through entrepreneurship rather than inheritance, and this has an impact on all the interactions that wealth managers have with their clients – including around philanthropic giving,” she said. “As well as taking into account the different motivations for giving among entrepreneurs and inheritors, wealth managers also need to think about the changing demographic of HNWIs thanks to the boom of self-made wealth and, increasingly, wealth being made at a much younger age.”

Costello also noted that, based on US Trust research, clients are around a third more likely to choose an advisor who is knowledgeable about philanthropy, or who can refer their client to someone who is. Furthermore, 90 per cent of those the firm has previously surveyed would like values-based discussions to take place “no later than the third meeting with their advisor,” while over a third of wealthy clients prefer that this conversation occur during the first meeting.

“From our own research, we know that over 98 per cent – virtually all – of wealthy households are philanthropically active,” Costello said. “And we know that charitable engagement is one of the most important aspects of their wealth experience. It is critical, therefore, that wealth advisors understand the philanthropic priorities, values and goals of their clients.”

She added: “In addition to enhancing client satisfaction, there are significant benefits to advisors who meaningfully engage their clients around their philanthropic values and aspirations, including a deepening of the client relationship, establishment of relationships with extended family members, acquisition of new clients due to both referrals and demonstrated philanthropic acumen, and even ancillary opportunities to join non-profit boards and other engagements.”

While it seems that there is indeed some industry consensus on the extent to which an individual or family's source of wealth impacts their philanthropic endeavors, it is, as Shafer noted, difficult to generalize in full. The issues raised do however reinforce that there are an array of factors at play when it comes to what shapes clients' philanthropic ambitions, which in some cases may well be influenced to at least some extent by how they created or acquired their wealth. Advisors that get to the heart of all of these issues will no doubt be best placed to help clients be philanthropic in a strategic and personally meaningful way.