James Dyson

The four-line truth

Lines are separate lifecycle measures and are never summed: committed = donor-published award/approved-commitment flows or signed recipient-confirmed commitments within the displayed source coverage period, including exact named commitments, plus reviewed current forward-portfolio aggregates that are never accumulated across source snapshots; awaiting = latest-FY statutory 'approved for future payment' or audited future-support-obligation balance; deployed = disclosed paid amounts, split into statutory, recipient-confirmed, and donor-reported evidence; in vehicles = transfers to controlled vehicles, DAFs, recipient foundations, or unresolved associated vehicles pending onward evidence (withheld-amount gifts counted separately). Absence of events is absence of loaded evidence, not zero giving.

Top recipients

1. Gresham's School – Holt Hall Project1 grant · FY2023 ·statutory$7.4M
2. Gresham's School - Holt Hall Project1 grant · FY2024 ·statutory$3.3M
3. University of Edinburgh, Dyson Race against Dementia acceleration project2 grants · FY2021–FY2022 ·statutory$1.4M
4. Dyson nominated charity donation - Alzheimer's Research UK2 grants · FY2020–FY2024 ·statutory$137K
5. Dyson nominated charity donation – Alzheimer's Research UK3 grants · FY2021–FY2023 ·statutory$124K

Largest recipients across loaded paid line-item records; recipient names as filed (entity resolution pending). Aggregate-basis sources carry no recipient detail.

Transparency

• Publishes an open grants databaseno donor-published database loaded0/40
• Capital traceable to a named recipient56% of $22,060,22817/30
• Statutory filings carry recipient detail56% of $22,060,228 filed8/15
• Most recent evidenceFY202415/15

England & Wales charities may withhold recipient names on materiality or serious prejudice grounds, and a charitable trust may withhold recipients and amounts entirely while the settlor lives (Charities Act 2011 s.132(4)).

Voluntary points reward disclosure the donor chose — publishing an open grants database, and naming recipients. Compelled points reflect how completely and how currently their statutory filings land. The split exists because disclosure regimes differ by jurisdiction: a high compelled score is law-abiding, not generous, and a low one may reflect a rule the donor did not write.

What the filed accounts actually disclosed

• 2024-12-312 named recipients · 11 aggregate rowsThe James Dyson Foundation · note "Grant funding activities" · GBPfiled accountsrecipients namedread from scan · review flagged
• 2023-12-312 named recipients · 10 aggregate rowsThe James Dyson Foundation · note "5. Grant funding activities" · GBPfiled accountsrecipients namedread from scan · review flagged
• 2022-12-312 named recipients · 10 aggregate rowsThe James Dyson Foundation · note "Grant funding activities" · GBPfiled accountsrecipients namedread from scan · review flagged
• 2021-12-312 named recipients · 12 aggregate rowsThe James Dyson Foundation · note "5. Grant funding activities" · GBPfiled accountsrecipients namedread from scan · review flagged
• 2020-12-311 named recipient · 12 aggregate rowsThe James Dyson Foundation · note "5. Grant funding activities" · GBPfiled accountsrecipients namedtext layer · review flagged

Extracted from charity accounts filed with CCEW or OSCR and independently re-read; every note reconciles (named + aggregate = the printed total). A note with no named recipients is a disclosure outcome, not an absence of giving: SORP Module 16 lets a charity withhold names on immateriality or serious prejudice, and Charities Act 2011 s.132(4) lets an England & Wales charitable trustwithhold recipients and amounts entirely while the settlor is alive.

Vehicles · 3 regulator- or Wikidata-linked

• The James Dyson Foundationcharity confirmed / CCEWCCEW 1099709 · founder
• Dysonno EIN claim
• Dyson Farmingno EIN claim

Provenance