tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/philanthropic-foundations-6558/articlesPhilanthropic foundations – The Conversation2017-10-16T01:02:51Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/847652017-10-16T01:02:51Z2017-10-16T01:02:51ZTaking the pulse of a city: Melbourne’s Vital Signs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190111/original/file-20171013-31422-cp2h0c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Vital Signs takes stock of all the key elements of a city's successes and challenges, and the Melbourne Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation uses this data to guide its grant-making. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Vital Signs is a report that gathers good-quality data about a city from reputable sources to provide a snapshot of its community. Vital Signs identifies things to celebrate and things to improve.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://torontosvitalsigns.ca/">Toronto Community Foundation</a> produced the first Vital Signs report in 2006. This was so well received that it led to more than 30 community foundations undertaking the Vital Signs project across Canada, led by Community Foundations of Canada.</p>
<p>I first saw Toronto’s 2006 Vital Signs through my earlier advisory work for community foundations around Australia. I was hugely impressed and could see the value of an independent set of data to check a community’s health and wellbeing. </p>
<p>When I was appointed CEO of the <a href="https://www.lmcf.org.au/">Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation</a>, essentially Melbourne’s own community foundation, producing Vital Signs was a potential opportunity. </p>
<p>Community foundations provide grants for charitable purposes and often work collaboratively, using their knowledge and networks to help make a difference. The Vital Signs report provides us with up-to-date data on which to base decisions about our granting priorities. </p>
<p>Most importantly, the reports are intended to assist other foundations, leaders of not-for-profit organisations and policymakers working on the various issues.</p>
<p>So, what did we find in <a href="https://www.lmcf.org.au/getattachment/4e84e093-36a1-46af-bbff-7973885fe857/VS_Report_2017_ONLINE.pdf.aspx?lang=en-AU">Greater Melbourne Vital Signs 2017</a>?</p>
<h2>What can we celebrate about our city?</h2>
<p>Overall, education is a strength: <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4240.0">95% of children</a> in Victoria <a href="http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/research/VCAMS_Indicator_31_1a.xlsx">attend preschool</a>. And 82% of young people <a href="https://auth.censusdata.abs.gov.au/webapi/jsf/tableView/tableView.xhtml#">finish Year 12</a> (compared with 55% 50 years ago). </p>
<p>Also, <a href="http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/research/VCAMS_Indicator_7_8b.xlsx">87% of children are in good health</a>.</p>
<p>An impressive <a href="http://creative.vic.gov.au/research/reports/arts-in-daily-life">95% of residents</a> participate in or attend arts and cultural events.</p>
<h2>What are Melbourne’s biggest challenges?</h2>
<p>Homelessness and the lack of affordable housing remain big challenges for Melbourne. The median price of housing across Greater Melbourne has increased by 19% <a href="https://www.corelogic.com.au/reports/CL_Housing-Affordability-Dec_2016.pdf">in the last five years</a>. A person living on income support payments can afford only 0.7% of <a href="http://www.anglicare.asn.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/anglicare-australia-ras-2017---reissue-final.pdf?sfvrsn=0">private rental properties</a>.</p>
<p>The number of older women “couch surfing” has <a href="http://chp.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/170807-rapid-rise-in-hidden-forms-of-homelessness-HW2017.pdf">increased 83% since 2012</a>. Of the people using homeless services, more than half are <a href="http://chp.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/10122012_Homelessness-in-Victoria-with-2011-ABS-stats.pdf">under 25</a>. </p>
<p>Despite much higher school completion rates than 50 years ago, youth unemployment is too high at 13.5% of young people (aged 15-24 years). Only one-third of graduates seeking full-time employment were able to find a job within four months. Underemployment of young people is even more significant at 18%; the <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/meisubs.NSF/log?openagent&6202022.xls&6202.0&Time%20Series%20Spreadsheet&0AB9C8BE5EC203B6CA25819A001351A9&0&Aug%202017&14.09.2017&Latest">highest since records began</a>.</p>
<p>Our foodbowl, which has a wonderful capacity to grow 82% of the city’s vegetables and 41% of our t<a href="http://veil.msd.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/2355148/Foodprint-Melbourne-summary-briefing.pdf">otal food needs</a>, needs to be protected and drought-proofed – 40% of our waterways are <a href="http://yarraandbay.vic.gov.au/report-card/report-card-2016">under stress</a>.</p>
<p>Another concern is the report that one in five people (20%) reported experiencing discrimination based on skin colour, ethnic origin or religion. This is <a href="http://scanlonfoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-Mapping-Social-Cohesion-Report-FINAL-with-covers.pdf">up from 15% in 2015</a>. This is particularly concerning given that 34% of our population was born outside Australia and nearly 1.5 million people speak a <a href="http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/CensusOutput/copsub2016.NSF/All%20docs%20by%20catNo/2016%7ECommunity%20Profile%7E2GMEL/$File/GCP_2GMEL.zip?OpenElement">language other than English at home</a>.</p>
<p>Our <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/15d47b77-dee2-42c6-bf2e-6d73e661f99a/files/state-inventory-2015.pdf">greenhouse gas emissions</a> are around <a href="https://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators">four times the global average</a>. However, rooftop solar is rapidly increasing – although we sit at <a href="http://pv-map.apvi.org.au/historical#4/-26.67/134.12">14% residential uptake</a> compared with Queensland at 29%, Western Australia at 23.1% and South Australia at 28.8%. We need to reduce our waste, which is increasing, although <a href="http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/publications-and-research/research/victorian-waste-and-recycling-data-results-201415/victorian-local-government-annual-waste-services-report-201415">44% is recycled or recovered</a>.</p>
<h2>Which challenges should philanthropy target?</h2>
<p>Philanthropy occupies a unique place in the Melbourne community. Foundations can take a long-term view, outside of election and annual meeting cycles. We can support innovative responses, sometimes testing and proving new services and programs before government can fund them or a social enterprise model can become sustainable. </p>
<p>Philanthropy can try to tackle the tough issues. Philanthropy can work in partnership with government and business and bring sectors together. Sometimes it makes most sense for government or business to take a lead.</p>
<p>Overall, we are a well-educated, arts-oriented city. We are doing well conserving water and improving air quality.</p>
<p>However, we must tackle the lack of affordable housing, reduce youth unemployment, protect our waterways and our food bowl, and actively support social inclusion. And more people need to be more active.</p>
<p>Many of these challenges can be reduced if we take a proactive approach as a community, collaborating across sectors. We will continue to work with our partners on:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>reducing homelessness and increasing the supply of more affordable housing</p></li>
<li><p>educing youth unemployment in a changing world of work</p></li>
<li><p>reducing discrimination in a culturally diverse community</p></li>
<li><p>ensuring a sustainable food bowl and healthy waterways</p></li>
<li><p>reducing our level of waste</p></li>
<li><p>supporting our community to prepare for and recover from heatwaves and other natural disasters such as fires and droughts, especially those most at risk such as children and older people or those with limited financial resources.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Guided by the evidence</h2>
<p>Many foundations around the world are increasingly using evidence to inform their granting and other programs. </p>
<p>Community foundations like the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation are a hub for charitable giving and granting in a particular community. They are focused on the key issues facing our communities and also on growing philanthropy. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190106/original/file-20171013-31390-1hl1exr.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190106/original/file-20171013-31390-1hl1exr.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190106/original/file-20171013-31390-1hl1exr.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=845&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190106/original/file-20171013-31390-1hl1exr.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=845&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190106/original/file-20171013-31390-1hl1exr.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=845&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190106/original/file-20171013-31390-1hl1exr.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1062&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190106/original/file-20171013-31390-1hl1exr.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1062&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190106/original/file-20171013-31390-1hl1exr.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1062&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our Greater Melbourne Vital Signs 2017 report is designed around some general population information about the greater Melbourne community and the impact areas around which the foundation’s grants program is organised: education and employment; healthy and cohesive communities; homelessness and affordable housing; and environment and sustainability.</p>
<p>We bring diverse players together to a safe, independent space to think creatively about community challenges and new solutions. </p>
<p>Our first Melbourne Vital Signs was produced in 2014 with academic research and advice from Community Indicators Victoria at the University of Melbourne.</p>
<p>The 2017 Vital Signs report, our second, has involved a wider group of academic advisers from the University of Melbourne (Transforming Housing, Victorian Eco Innovation Lab), Victoria University (Mitchell Institute) and Monash University (Climate Works). Two of our team, Dan Pediaditis and Kelly Sparke, undertook additional research and data analysis. </p>
<p>The advisory committee members are listed on the back cover of the full report and we are very appreciative of their advice and commitment. A full list of research sources, 97 in all, is included in the report.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84765/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Brown is CEO of the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation, which led the project described in this article and worked collaboratively with a group of advisory researchers (see back cover of full report) and an internal team to collate and publish the Greater Melbourne 2017 Vital Signs report.</span></em></p>A decade after Toronto produced the first Vitals Signs report, community foundations in Melbourne and other cities are using these reports’ up-to-date data to inform their decisions.Catherine Brown, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Business & Law, Centre for Social Impact, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/656532016-10-04T19:11:02Z2016-10-04T19:11:02ZPhilanthropic foundations cost taxpayers – and so should be made accountable<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138394/original/image-20160920-11095-sk1czw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Philanthropic foundations are unlike other charities and not-for-profit organisations.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There are <a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-rich-give-little-and-a-culture-of-secrecy-surrounds-their-philanthropy-63879">varying levels of understanding</a> about philanthropy’s role and accountability requirements – particularly in Australia.</p>
<p>Since organised philanthropy plays a significant role in democratic societies, answering the philosophical and ethical questions it raises is vital. Public policy acknowledges this significance by giving tax benefits to philanthropic donors. Essentially, this is money that is forgone from the public purse.</p>
<p>First, however, it is important to understand that philanthropy assumes several forms. This includes individuals giving their time, money and/or expertise, as well as wealthy individuals or families presenting large philanthropic gifts. Corporate giving also falls under this spectrum.</p>
<p>There are also private philanthropic foundations, or perpetual, charitable, grant-making foundations and trusts. So what are these? And why is philanthropy viewed as a solely private activity in Australia?</p>
<h2>Private wealth for public purposes</h2>
<p>Philanthropic foundations are usually established by individuals, families or businesses. They are a means of providing long-term growth of, and support to, the common good. Foundations therefore provide <a href="http://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/About_ACNC/Research/Background_NFP/ACNC/Edu/NFP_background.aspx?hkey=e88db8f0-3e48-4408-ab99-c2acb6ef8a1d">private wealth for public purposes</a>. </p>
<p>Like their international counterparts, Australian foundations share a unique set of characteristics:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>they are perpetual entities;</p></li>
<li><p>they have a permanent endowment; and</p></li>
<li><p>their trustees are self-appointed.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>These foundations have <a href="https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/43411/2/02whole.pdf">minimal legal or regulatory requirements</a> for full public accountability.</p>
<p>Unlike government and business, however, foundations have no voters, customers or shareholders. And philanthropy is relatively immune from media criticism, particularly in Australia. Any questioning can prompt hurt and outrage, as if the questioner is seeking to discredit these generous people. </p>
<p>This is true no matter how general the query may be. For example, the answer to the question “How many foundations are there in Australia today?” remains unknown outside the Australian Taxation Office.</p>
<h2>How are philanthropic foundations different from charities?</h2>
<p>Although legally defined as charitable entities, foundations are unlike other charities and not-for-profit organisations. </p>
<p>Charities operate within a regulatory framework and constantly need to raise funds. Most importantly, charities are required to be fully publicly accountable. </p>
<p>A board of trustees governs philanthropic trusts and foundations. Initially, these are usually named in the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/super/self-managed-super-funds/setting-up/create-the-trust-and-trust-deed/">trust deed</a>. Their successors are thereafter appointed by the remaining trustees. As most foundations do not publish annual reports, little information is available about who these people are. </p>
<p>While trustees have fiduciary responsibilities, their foundation’s perpetual endowment generally relieves them of the need to raise supplementary funds.</p>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=fR4IYOB9RUsC&redir_esc=y">Scholars claim</a> that public knowledge of foundation boards, via public accountability, could improve board diversity, and thereby help trustees gain a better understanding of community problems their foundations are trying to solve.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138393/original/image-20160920-11134-1y01881.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138393/original/image-20160920-11134-1y01881.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138393/original/image-20160920-11134-1y01881.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138393/original/image-20160920-11134-1y01881.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138393/original/image-20160920-11134-1y01881.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138393/original/image-20160920-11134-1y01881.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138393/original/image-20160920-11134-1y01881.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Businessman and philanthropist David Koch is a powerful figure in American politics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Carlo Allegri/Reuters</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Public accountability and philanthropy</h2>
<p>It is often argued there is a contradiction at the heart of the issue of public accountability. This is the difficulty of balancing two diametrically opposed ideas: the privacy of foundations and the public interest.</p>
<p>Privacy advocates argue foundations are created by private individuals and/or families using private money. This means, they say, foundations should not have to report publicly. Public accountability would also increase government regulation over foundations. They argue this lessens a foundation’s independence and individuality, and ultimately jeopardises its freedom.</p>
<p>The first counter-argument is that foundations receive generous subsidies in the form of tax benefits. In 2008, the Australian Treasury <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/ConsultationsandReviews/Consultations/2008/Improving-the-integrity-of-Prescribed-Private-Funds">estimated</a> this to be at least 45 cents in every philanthropic dollar.</p>
<p>Second, foundations are genuinely both private and public bodies. They are private because they receive their funds from private individuals. Yet they are also public – foundations devote funds via grants to non-profit bodies approved by the Australian Taxation Office.</p>
<h2>The power of philanthropists in public life</h2>
<p>The American Congress recognised these arguments when it passed the <a href="https://archive.org/stream/generalexplanati00jcs1670#page/n1/mode/2up">Taxation Reform Act</a>. The act declared that foundations are not solely private and mandated public accountability. It echoed the <a href="https://www.carnegie.org/publications/transparency-and-accomplishment-a-legacy-of-glass-pockets/">Carnegie Foundation’s plea</a> that it was incumbent upon foundations to have <a href="http://glasspockets.org">glass pockets</a>. </p>
<p>A further argument, rarely acknowledged, is that foundations are economically powerful and influential. They should therefore <a href="https://www.russellsage.org/sites/all/files/Prewitt_Chap1_0.pdf">tell the community</a> how they are applying these funds. This is pertinent in light of <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Dark-Money-secretive-billionaires-political-ebook/dp/B01D3X4II0">Jane Mayer’s examination</a> of wealthy American philanthropists and their political manoeuvring. </p>
<p>Scholars such as <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Gv9ejrvJf7AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Strategic+Giving:+The+Art+and+Science+of+Philanthropy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx-v_7zpzPAhUQNpQKHUweAcMQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Strategic%20Giving%3A%20The%20Art%20and%20Science%20of%20Philanthropy&f=false">Peter Frumkin</a> claim power imbalances between grant-maker and recipient make public reporting imperative. Disclosing information would make foundations more accountable. It would also, Frumkin argues, make them more effective and have greater impact.</p>
<p>Given the above, are the needs of the not-for-profit sector best served by the absence of publicly available information? The lack of requirements for public accountability of trusts and foundations in Australia is arguably an ethical issue.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65653/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Cham is director of The Australia Institute (TAI). </span></em></p>The current lack of transparency in Australian philanthropy raises ethical questions. Far from being a solely private activity, philanthropy needs greater public accountability.Elizabeth Cham, Honorary Fellow, UTS Business School, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/647832016-09-08T10:13:40Z2016-09-08T10:13:40ZWhy money is an impoverished metric of generosity<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136816/original/image-20160906-25231-1ubapb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Volunteers clean up after Hurricane Sandy</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CI_boardwalk_Sandy_sweepers_jeh.jpg">jim.henderson</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Philanthropy watchers such as <a href="http://www.forbes.com/top-givers/">Forbes</a>, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/most-generous-people-in-the-world-2015-10">Business Insider</a> and the <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/specialreport/the-2016-philanthropy-50/87">Chronicle of Philanthropy</a> regularly produce rankings of the most generous philanthropists in the United States. </p>
<p>On this basis, <a href="http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Foundation-Factsheet">Bill Gates</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett">Warren Buffett</a> are often ranked at the top of currently active philanthropists, and <a href="http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/american_historys_great_philanthropists">John Rockefeller</a> and <a href="http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/american_historys_great_philanthropists">Andrew Carnegie</a> are often listed among the most generous Americans of all time.</p>
<p>Such lists all share a common methodology. They add up the amounts of the checks donors have written to charitable causes, and then rank them according to the total amount of money they have given away. While there are few things that we Americans like more than lists and money, such methods not only misrepresent giving but do so in a way that distorts our understanding of generosity.</p>
<p>I have taught ethics of philanthropy at Indiana University for 20 years, and one of the most important lessons my students and I have learned is this: Generosity isn’t just about the money. Indeed, I would argue that it is increasingly apparent that giving can take many worthy forms other than writing checks. </p>
<h2>Money does not always benefit</h2>
<p>Merely giving away money does not a benefactor make, and the beneficial impact of gifts cannot be assessed in terms of their monetary value. </p>
<p>For example, in the early 20th century, both the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution <a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Weak-Eugenics-Americas/dp/0914153293">gave large amounts of money</a> to fund <a href="http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/">eugenics programs</a> designed to improve the genetic quality of the human population. </p>
<p>Though these benefactions were once regarded as visionary, today they are almost universally seen as anything but. In <a href="http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796">Nazi hands</a>, such thinking led the extermination of large groups of people based on supposed genetic “inferiority.” <a href="http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/">Forced sterilization programs in the U.S.</a> in the early 20th century employed a similar rationale. No matter how much money was given, it is impossible to call such donations generous.</p>
<h2>Generosity clarified</h2>
<p>True generosity, as I argue in my book <a href="http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?products_id=68173">“We Make A Life by What We Give,”</a> involves more than handing out money. </p>
<p>In many cases, merely counting up the dollars tells us very little about the difference an act of generosity makes. Good people can be as generous with their time and talent as they are with their treasure, and it is possible to make a huge difference in the life of a person, a community or a society without giving away a cent.</p>
<p>Just look at the work of Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Teresa, none of whom enjoyed the financial wherewithal to give away large sums of money. Yet each is regarded as among 20th-century humanity’s greatest benefactors. Their generosity was expressed not in dollars but in words and actions that inspired the best in other human beings.</p>
<p>Money is only one of many different means by which generosity can express itself. One of the biggest problems with ranking the generous by the amounts of money they give away is the implicit suggestion that, when it comes to generosity, money is all that counts.</p>
<h2>To whom was the money given, how and why?</h2>
<p>Suppose, for example, that a beggar on the street asks a passerby for five dollars. Would giving the money be a good thing? We need to know more about the situation. </p>
<p>What will the beggar use the money for? Will it, for example, merely feed a drug habit that is only harming the addict, or will it be used for more meritorious purposes, such as buying food?</p>
<p>Some of my students sometimes argue that would-be donors cannot assume responsibility for making such judgments, because doing so sets them up as unqualified moral arbiters of human need, presuming to judge which cases are truly meritorious. In fact, however, as we discuss in class, such judgments are essential. Suppose, for example, that the beggar announced an intention to use the money to buy a weapon to commit murder.</p>
<p>Acts of generosity are more or less praiseworthy depending on whom the donor is helping, how such help is being rendered and why the donor is lending aid. </p>
<p>As <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.4.iv.html">Aristotle</a> said over 2,000 years ago, a truly generous donor does not merely give but gives the appropriate thing to the appropriate person at the appropriate time in the appropriate way and for the appropriate reason.</p>
<p>To take another familiar example, if my 10-year-old son asks me for five dollars, I cannot necessarily pat myself on the back merely for giving him the money. Nor would it be reasonable to assume that, because I gave him 50 or 500 dollars instead, I had necessarily done 10 or 100 times as much good.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most pernicious effect of ranking philanthropists according to the amounts of money they give away is its tendency to make people of lesser means feel philanthropically impotent or even irrelevant.</p>
<p>Faced with news of a billion-dollar gift, ordinary people might find themselves thinking that no gift of theirs would even register, and therefore give up trying.</p>
<p>To my mind, nothing could be further from the truth. </p>
<h2>A more precious resource: Time</h2>
<p>To reiterate, while people of great financial means are capable of giving away more money than people who live in poverty, there are important respects in which the world’s richest man is incapable of exhibiting greater generosity than the poorest of the poor.</p>
<p>Consider time, one of humanity’s most precious resources. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett may have the most money, but even their billions cannot buy them an extra minute of time in a day. The poorest man on earth starts each day with the exact same 24 hours as the world’s richest. And how we spend our time is no less important than how we spend our money.</p>
<p>In this sense, no one – not even the poorest person on earth – lacks the means to be generous. </p>
<p>Giving someone our undivided attention, providing a shoulder to lean or cry on, or sharing a kind word with someone – in each of these cases, ordinary citizens of the United States can do every bit as much as the wealthy to make a difference in someone else’s life.</p>
<p>Despite the weaknesses of a purely monetary metric of generosity, however, even leading academic philanthropy and nonprofit management programs – there are now <a href="http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2016/8/9/philanthropy-scholarship-is-strong-and-getting-stronger.html">over 300</a> colleges and universities that offer courses in these subjects – continue to focus largely on money. From my perspective, it seems that fundraising often looms so large in their curricular fields of view that other forms of giving are often almost completely blotted out. </p>
<p>Given the opportunity, though, many students quickly recognize the vital role that nonmonetary forms of generosity can play in enriching the lives of both donors and recipients. </p>
<p>It is probably foolish to dream of a day when we no longer presume to rank the generous by the amounts of the checks they write. But we can, in my view, take steps to minimize the harm such lists do to our understanding of the true meaning of generosity, a human excellence that should never be reduced to mere money.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64783/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
There are few things Americans like more than lists and money, but ranking philanthropists on the monetary size of their giving distorts our understanding of generosity, argues one ethicist.Richard Gunderman, Chancellor's Professor of Medicine, Liberal Arts, and Philanthropy, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/638792016-08-17T20:28:31Z2016-08-17T20:28:31ZAustralia’s rich give little – and a culture of secrecy surrounds their philanthropy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134070/original/image-20160815-15256-1q4puw7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Australia is becoming more unequal. And Australia's wealthiest people don't seem to want to do anything about it.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Joel Carrett</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Wealth in Australia is <a href="https://theconversation.com/land-of-the-fair-go-no-more-wealth-in-australia-is-becoming-more-unequal-63327">becoming heavily concentrated</a> among a tiny, super-wealthy elite. Manifestations of this inequality include signs of <a href="http://www.imaginelifestyles.com/luxuryliving/2011/01/top-10-luxury-cars-longest-waiting-lists-and-highest-prices">obscene wealth</a> and <a href="http://www.acoss.org.au/poverty-2/">extreme poverty</a>.</p>
<p>Governments are struggling to tackle this problem. But could philanthropy be part of the solution?</p>
<p>The altruistic behaviour of some of Australia’s wealthy is <a href="http://www.philanthropy.org.au/blog/view/a-new-conceptualisation-of-the-relationship-between-philanthropy-government/">being promoted</a> as a feasible way to solve national and international problems. There <a href="https://penguin.com.au/books/giving-9780099509592">is a view</a> that philanthropy from super-wealthy individuals, rather than government policy, will be the force that <a href="http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/philanthrocapitalism-9781596913745/">changes the world for the better</a>.</p>
<p>But, in Australia, this seems unlikely.</p>
<h2>State of play</h2>
<p>Australia’s rich give <a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/27259/">at a lower rate</a> than their counterparts in comparable countries such as the UK, Canada and the US. </p>
<p>About 40% of Australia’s wealthiest are likely to be engaged in minimal – if any – giving. The <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/philanthropy-comes-of-age-in-australia-20140818-105f97.html">most recent tax figures</a> show that of those earning more than A$1 million per year, 37% did not claim a single dollar of tax-deductible charitable giving.</p>
<p>Foundations (known as private ancillary funds, or PAFs) are the main vehicles for philanthropy in modern Australia. PAFs are private funds established for public purposes and government policy provides significant tax concessions. In 2008, <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.au/%7E/media/Treasury/Consultations%20and%20Reviews/Consultations/2008/Improving%20the%20integrity%20of%20Prescribed%20Private%20Funds%20Discussion%20Paper/Key%20Documents/PDF/Prescribed_Private_Funds.ashx">Treasury estimated</a> that 45 cents in every philanthropic dollar came from the public purse. </p>
<p>The numbers of the foundations, modelled on American family foundations, grew quickly after their introduction to Australia in 2001. By December 2014 more than 1,240 <a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/91306/4/Alexandra_Williamson_Thesis.pdf">had been created</a>. With operating capital of $4 billion, they distributed approximately $1.7 billion to the community. </p>
<p>There is even a suggestion that there could be up to 3,000 funds within the next two decades.</p>
<h2>The secret cache of funds</h2>
<p>Australian budget papers show the tax benefits PAFs received between 2001 and 2009 totalled $935.468 million. This is <a href="https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/43411/2/02whole.pdf">more than double</a> the amount they returned to the community in grants ($461.77 million).</p>
<p>It is therefore vitally important for the community to know if PAFs fulfil their philanthropic obligation. </p>
<p>Australian PAFs share three characteristics with their counterpart foundations in the US. They:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>exist in perpetuity;</p></li>
<li><p>have their own capital fund; and</p></li>
<li><p>their trustee boards are self-selected. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>But one major difference is Australian PAFs do not have the same public accountability requirements.</p>
<p>In 2008, Treasury reviewed these funds’ operations. One of the changes <a href="http://search.tss.gov.au/s/search.html?collection=treasury&profile=treasury&query=improving%20the%20integrity%20of%20prescribed%20private%20funds&scope_disable=off">it wanted</a> was to make contact details available to the charities and NGOs for whom these foundations were established.</p>
<p>Presumably because of lobbying by influential philanthropists, attempts to introduce this minimum form of public accountability were soundly defeated and ultimately not implemented.</p>
<p>Treasury rarely if ever loses – but in this case it did.</p>
<h2>A tax-minimisation strategy?</h2>
<p>There has been some amelioration of this situation with the establishment of Australia’s first independent regulator for charities, the <a href="http://www.acnc.gov.au/">Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission</a> (ACNC). The regulator is the first tiny step in providing the public with very limited information about some foundations. </p>
<p>But the vast majority of those registered with the ACNC are grant-seeking charities, not grant-making foundations.</p>
<p>Some claim that PAFs are little more than a tax-minimisation strategy for the rich. As the Australian Services Union <a href="http://search.tss.gov.au/s/search.html?collection=treasury&profile=treasury&query=improving%20the%20integrity%20of%20prescribed%20private%20funds&scope_disable=off">argued in a submission</a> to the Treasury review in 2008, these funds:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… operate with surprisingly little scrutiny. There is no public information on the size of the fund, how and where they spend their money or even how to contact them. No other type of organisation is allowed to operate like this. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Australia is becoming more unequal. And Australia’s wealthiest don’t seem to want to do anything about it.</p>
<p>Until we adopt the US practice of “glass pockets”, where foundations are legally compelled to provide the data, we will remain in the extraordinary position where we cannot answer even the most straightforward questions – like how many trusts and foundations exist and are registered in Australia today – much less more complex ones, such as how one assesses the sector’s cumulative impact. </p>
<p>There is a strong case for reform of Australian philanthropic accountability, given the sector’s privileged taxation position. More concerning, the lack of publicly available data inhibits the not-for-profit sector from accessing these funds: money that could potentially alleviate the worst excesses of Australia’s rising inequality.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63879/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Cham is a director of the Australia Institute.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bronwen Dalton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There is a view that philanthropy from super-wealthy individuals, rather than government policy, will be the force that changes the world for the better. But this seems unlikely in Australia.Bronwen Dalton, Senior Lecturer, School of Management, University of Technology SydneyElizabeth Cham, Honorary Fellow, UTS Business School, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/548502016-03-03T11:11:11Z2016-03-03T11:11:11ZPhilanthropic foundations: black boxes that must become more transparent<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113414/original/image-20160301-31020-1hjr3dk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Penny for their thoughts.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-280064555/stock-photo-view-of-midtown-manhattan-new-york-city-with-coin-operated-telescope-on-bright-sunny-day.html?src=pp-photo-290657414-1aNzbFeuBVe4z7m3ycE75g-5&ws=1">Big city by Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Charitable giving is big business, with many organisations handling millions in revenue. But big charities have come under fire for issues from bad accounting to actually doing more harm than good. In our short series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/the-problem-with-big-charity">The Problem with Big Charity</a>, Tobias Jung looks at how foundations work – or not.</em></p>
<p>A philanthropic foundation and an octopus have much in common. Their non-rigid forms mean that they are both flexible and able to squeeze into areas that are inaccessible to others. Both are seen as great problem-solvers and have tentacles that are far-reaching. However, understanding their movements is difficult, and they have a spectrum of defence mechanisms against potential enemies. While studying the octopus can be left to natural scientists, foundations warrant closer social and political examination.</p>
<p>Foundations are essentially independent charitable organisations. It is important to realise that there is no such thing as a typical foundation, as data from the <a href="http://data.foundationcenter.org/?_ga=1.113598337.745591055.1456569538">US</a> and <a href="http://www.efc.be/philanthropy-sector/foundations-in-europe/">Europe</a> shows. Some foundations, such as the Ford Foundation in the US or the Wellcome Trust in the UK have enormous wealth – the majority don’t. Some foundations, as illustrated by the cases of the <a href="http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/">Clinton Foundation in the US</a> or the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/29/shane-warne-foundation-announces-closure-after-speculation-over-funds">Shane Warne Foundation in Australia</a>, raise serious questions about appropriate and acceptable foundation practices – most foundations don’t. Some foundations might be used as fronts for <a href="http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1331&context=wmlr">illegal or clandestine activities</a> – most foundations aren’t. </p>
<p>Defining a foundation is therefore difficult. Many countries don’t make a legal distinction between foundations and other forms of charitable organisation. Even labels can be misleading: few would consider the British Heart Foundation to be a “foundation”, and yet the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Henry Smith Charity in London both qualify. As independent charities, foundations can be “grantmaking”, concentrating on the distribution of funds to achieve their goals, or “operating”, running their own programmes to achieve their goals. </p>
<p>Their wealth can come from diverse sources, such as individual endowments or corporate wealth; their activities span the whole geographic and charitable spectrum. Even where legal distinctions between foundations and other charities do exist, it is often easier for <a href="https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Private-Foundations">statutory agencies</a> to highlight what disqualifies an organisation from constituting a foundation than to pinpoint their specific characteristics. </p>
<p>This fluidity, combined with the private nature of foundations, offers great potential for achieving positive social impact. They can address issues, and work in locations and fields, where governmental, political or corporate organisations either face substantial obstacles or are not welcomed at all. However, this along with wealth, ambition and a vision for social change offers rich opportunities for <a href="http://www.shu.ac.uk/_assets/pdf/cvsr-DavidHortonSmith-13June2013-Dark-Side-Vol-Sector.pdf">different types of abuse</a>. Pursuing individual gains, interests and agendas are just some examples. </p>
<h2>Mysterious workings</h2>
<p>So do foundations live up to their promise? Are they innovators, risk takers and catalysts for positive social change? How do they achieve their aims? At what costs? Who benefits most? These questions are hard to answer. Foundations increasingly may encourage formal evaluations and assessments of the work they fund, but they remain notoriously difficult to research. As an organisational type, they largely continue to be black boxes: their internal workings are often opaque and academic research access is difficult to obtain. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113418/original/image-20160301-31040-80kqcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113418/original/image-20160301-31040-80kqcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113418/original/image-20160301-31040-80kqcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113418/original/image-20160301-31040-80kqcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113418/original/image-20160301-31040-80kqcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113418/original/image-20160301-31040-80kqcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113418/original/image-20160301-31040-80kqcz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=573&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Inputs and outputs, but what’s inside?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-89626807/stock-photo--d-abstract-background.html?src=QFYKP58O53Tk7ggyaQqixg-2-97">Black boxes by Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>From the glimpses that we do have, there are indications that foundation rhetoric and reality do not always coincide. There are concerns that foundations can focus on symbolic and <a href="http://www.academia.edu/1114868/Foundations_Schools_and_the_State._School_Improvement_Partnerships_in_Germany_and_the_United_States_as_Legitimacy-Generating_Arrangements">legitimising actions</a>, and emphasise <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249820204_Revisiting_the_Big_Three_Foundations">ameliorative practices</a> instead of challenging or changing the status quo. </p>
<p>Critics point to the evident use of foundations as veils for advancing neoliberal and capitalist agendas <a href="http://www.academia.edu/529446/The_politics_of_venture_philanthropy_in_charter_school_policy_and_advocacy">in areas such as education</a>, agriculture and <a href="http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:20048">international development</a>, and a world where elite and relatively closed networks of influence and decision-making can silence critical voices by being <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Foundations_and_Public_Policy.html?id=qs4m2MelhoAC">brought into the fold or through funding dependencies</a>. Then there is the issue that with a wider move towards social investment and emphasis on achieving “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/using-a-total-impact-approach-to-achieve-social-outcomes">total impact</a>”, foundations might be encouraged to be risk-averse investors rather than risk-takers. </p>
<p>In the absence of a stronger research base on foundations, the extent of these issues remains unclear. This is especially so outside North America, with its longer history of “big” foundations, their role in shaping society, and the <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02354015">challenges this can cause</a>.</p>
<h2>Good works and glass pockets</h2>
<p>It is very easy to criticise foundations. Giving away money effectively, addressing and dealing with complex social and political issues, and achieving positive change are all difficult and time-consuming. Great ambitions are often accompanied by epic failures. Social expectations of what foundations can achieve need to be realistic. Philanthropy’s history and the nature of “<a href="https://archive.org/details/giftformsfunctio00maus">gifts</a>” also highlight that <a href="http://www.cgap.org.uk/news/154/59/A-History-of-Western-Philanthropy.html">social control and reciprocity</a> have always been central to philanthropic action. </p>
<p>It is important to remember, though, that this works both ways. Tax gifts granted to foundations from the public purse, the social impacts and costs that led and lead to foundations’ wealth, and questions around democratic principles in private organisations working for the public good mean that much stronger critical engagement with foundations is needed.</p>
<p>Foundations are aware of these problems. They acknowledge the need for better foundation classifications and for <a href="http://research.effectivephilanthropy.org/sharing-what-matters-foundation-transparency?utm_campaign=Sharing+What+Matters%3A+Foundation+Transparency&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=26533153&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_a5vMtT5P44ErtLKVpuusZyLcjG0wbS6UnC-LkC8roJZ4Id5CufpFkdf3UYpWOUX7mRAXF0L-QfdVbnKzRhJ8o9bX9WA&_hsmi=26533153">a more transparent and accountable foundation sector</a>. Various initiatives have been put in place. They range from the publication of “<a href="http://www.shellfoundation.org/Our-News/Coverage-Archive/Learning-from-Failure--New-EVPA-Report">failure reports</a>”, which share lessons on what does and what does not work, to the <a href="http://glasspockets.org">Glasspockets</a> initiative, which is intended to encourage and provide transparency on foundations and the public good they provide.</p>
<p>Despite this, the governance and funding structures for most of these initiatives reveal that these are foundation initiatives, driven and funded by foundations themselves. So while having glass pockets is a nice idea, more transparent bodies that would allow us to get a better understanding of the internal workings of foundations would be much better.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54850/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tobias Jung receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council for the 2015/16 Seminar Series 'Philanthropy to the rescue? Exploring the opportunities, strengths and challenges of philanthropy', <a href="http://seminars.philanthropy.scot">http://seminars.philanthropy.scot</a>, Grant reference ES/M002578/1. </span></em></p>Their structures and funding give them scope and access that others don’t have, but foundations also lack accountability.Tobias Jung, Senior Lecturer in Management, University of St AndrewsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/389932015-03-20T03:40:02Z2015-03-20T03:40:02ZCan the Gates Foundation be convinced to dump fossil fuels?<p>This week, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2015/mar/16/keep-it-in-the-ground-guardian-climate-change-campaign">The Guardian newspaper</a>
has campaigned for the <a href="http://www.gatesfoundation.org/">Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation</a> to divest its fossil fuel investments – which the newspaper claims are worth <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/gates-foundation-has-14bn-in-fossil-fuels-investments-guardian-analysis">US$1.4 billion</a>.</p>
<p>The foundation can and should address the climate crisis, particularly given the threat it poses to food security, public health, human rights, and the development agenda.</p>
<h2>Practical responses</h2>
<p>The Gates Foundation has made a significant contribution to practical responses to poverty, and Bill Gates has been <a href="http://books.simonandschuster.com/Creative-Capitalism/Michael-Kinsley/9781416599425">a long-standing advocate of “creative capitalism” to address global development issues</a>. </p>
<p>To their credit, Bill and Melinda Gates have shown great personal engagement with larger questions about human development, and their foundation has been a significant actor in the fields of agriculture, global health, education, and population. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75323/original/image-20150319-1604-mdzisl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75323/original/image-20150319-1604-mdzisl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75323/original/image-20150319-1604-mdzisl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75323/original/image-20150319-1604-mdzisl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75323/original/image-20150319-1604-mdzisl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75323/original/image-20150319-1604-mdzisl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75323/original/image-20150319-1604-mdzisl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bill Gates during a 2013 speech on climate change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Matthew Rimmer</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet it has also been <a href="http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/General-Information/Foundation-FAQ">reluctant to address the climate question directly</a>, stating:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The foundation believes that climate change is a major issue facing all of us, particularly poor people in developing countries, and we applaud the work that others are doing to help find solutions in this area,</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>While we do not fund efforts specifically aimed at reducing carbon emissions, many of our global health and development grants directly address problems that climate change creates or exacerbates.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75324/original/image-20150319-1588-15z5r32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75324/original/image-20150319-1588-15z5r32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75324/original/image-20150319-1588-15z5r32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75324/original/image-20150319-1588-15z5r32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75324/original/image-20150319-1588-15z5r32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75324/original/image-20150319-1588-15z5r32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75324/original/image-20150319-1588-15z5r32.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sign on climate change at the Gates Foundation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Matthew Rimmer</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For instance, the foundation highlights its agricultural development initiative, which it says will “help small farmers who live on less than $1 per day adapt to increased drought and flooding through the development of drought and flood resistant crops, improved irrigation efficiency, and other means”.</p>
<p>While this certainly involves indirectly responding to climate change, it doesn’t put the issue of preventing climate change at the heart of the issue.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/18/3623344/bill-gates-climate-change/">his annual letter</a>, Bill Gates noted: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is fair to ask whether the progress we’re predicting will be stifled by climate change… The most dramatic problems caused by climate change are more than 15 years away, but the long-term threat is so serious that the world needs to move much more aggressively — right now — to develop energy sources that are cheaper, can deliver on demand, and emit zero carbon dioxide.“ </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a somewhat curious statement, given the real and present danger already posed to food security, biodiversity, public health, and human security.</p>
<h2>The energy question</h2>
<p>Bill Gates has another keen interest: energy security. He has discussed what he sees as the need for <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-miracle-seeker-20101028#ixzz3UndixUlw">an "energy miracle”</a> to remedy the climate: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>To have the kind of reliable energy we expect, and to have it be cheaper and zero carbon, we need to pursue every available path to achieve a really big breakthrough. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>He seems to have been interested in nuclear power, carbon capture, and geo-engineering - rather than renewable energy.</p>
<p>For her part, Melinda Gates has <a href="http://www.aol.com/video/melinda-gates-to-climate-change-deniers-listen-to-the-science/518614047/">been highly critical of climate deniers</a>, emphasising the need for politicians to heed climate science.</p>
<h2>The Naomi Klein factor</h2>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DVgwmO8RYX0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">This Changes Everything - Naomi Klein.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/174143/time-big-green-go-fossil-free#">2013 article in the Nation</a>, the writer Naomi Klein expressed concerns about the huge fossil fuel holdings of some charities, including the Gates Foundation, and argued that this was inconsistent with public health goals: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A top priority of the Gates Foundation has been supporting malaria research, a disease intimately linked to climate… Does it really make sense to fight malaria while fueling one of the reasons it may be spreading more ferociously in some areas?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In her 2014 book, <a href="http://thischangeseverything.org/">This Changes Everything</a>, she went on to criticise the efforts of green billionaires to save us from climate change. Of Bill Gates and his foundation, she wrote: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Though he professes great concern about climate change, the Gates Foundation had at least $1.2 billion invested in just two oil giants, BP and ExxonMobil, as of December 2013, and those are only the beginning of his fossil fuel holdings.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Gates has been directly questioned on this issue, both in an <a href="https://vimeo.com/112980156">interview with a Dutch journalist</a> and during <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3761763.htm">a 2013 appearance on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Q&A program</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Edhd9WIIpmY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Bill Gates on ABC’s Q&A.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Klein has also criticised Bill Gates’ technocratic approach to the climate crisis, considering him to be overly dismissive of renewable energy: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>When Gates had his climate change epiphany, he too immediately raced to the prospect of a silver-bullet techno-fix in the future - without pausing to consider viable - if economically challenging - responses in the here and now.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Will The Guardian’s campaign succeed?</h2>
<p>The Guardian’s editor Alan Rusbridger has pledged to put <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/climate-change-guardian-threat-to-earth-alan-rusbridger">climate change at the “front and centre” of the newspaper’s coverage</a>, lending support to the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/15/climate-change-un-backs-divestment-campaign-paris-summit-fossil-fuels">global divestment movement</a> and urging philanthropic trusts like the Gates Foundation and Britain’s <a href="http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/">Wellcome Trust</a> to follow the example of the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/heirs-to-an-oil-fortune-join-the-divestment-drive.html?_r=0">Rockefeller Brothers Fund</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/M9MayBUgSHI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Keep It In The Ground - The Guardian.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Guardian said it recognised that the Gates Foundation has made “a huge contribution to human progress and equality by supporting scientific research and development projects”, but warned that “investments in fossil fuels are putting this progress at great risk, by undermining your long term ambitions.” </p>
<p>The campaign urges the Gates Foundation “to commit now to divesting from the top 200 fossil fuel companies within five years and to immediately freeze any new investments in those companies”. Rusbridger <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/16/argument-divesting-fossil-fuels-overwhelming-climate-change">wrote</a> that this would be “a small but crucial step in the economic transition away from a global economy run on fossil fuels”.</p>
<p>Hopefully, the campaign will be successful. Bill and Melinda Gates have certainly shown a willingness in the past to revise their approach, in light of new evidence, and both have been disturbed by the politics of climate denial. </p>
<p>The Gates Foundation can make a stronger contribution to the battle against climate change, especially given how the climate issue cuts across its food security, public health, and human rights aims. This is one way it can do so.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38993/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr Matthew Rimmer is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, working on Intellectual Property and Climate Change. He is an associate professor at the ANU College of Law, and an associate director of the Australian Centre for Intellectual Property. Matthew Rimmer is currently an Australian Research Council Future Fellow working on a project entitled "Intellectual Property and Climate Change: Inventing Clean Technologes".</span></em></p>The Gates Foundation is being urged to dump its sizeable fossil fuel assets. Bill Gates cares deeply about world health and development, both of which are affected by climate, but will his charity divest?Matthew Rimmer, ARC Future Fellow and Associate Professor in Intellectual Property, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/381232015-02-27T16:54:57Z2015-02-27T16:54:57ZHillary Clinton donor scandal puts spotlight on US philanthropy sector<p>Though she has yet to announce her <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/hillary-clinton-2016-shadow-campaign-101762.html">2016 presidential candidacy</a>, Hillary Clinton is already assumed to be running – and has already hit trouble. </p>
<p>In recent weeks, there have been unedifying <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html?hpid=z2">reports</a> that the <a href="https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-presidential-center/about/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation">Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation</a> accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as US secretary of state, skirting dangerously close to outright violation of conflict-of-interest agreements it had made with the Obama administration.</p>
<p>But this isn’t just a problem for Hillary’s imminent presidential campaign – it also indicates a deep structural problem with the whole edifice of American philanthropy. </p>
<p>The US’s philanthropic sector is massive and hugely powerful. It’s also unrepresentative, unaccountable and generally secretive. Despite having tax-exempt status, it exists outside democratic electoral or shareholder oversight and is entirely beholden to the interests and whims of the very wealthy and powerful and their donors – whether they are major transnational corporations, dictatorial governments, or lobbyists out for direct or indirect personal gain or client influence.</p>
<p>This way of doing things has been causing trouble for a long time. </p>
<h2>Rockefeller row</h2>
<p>In 1915, in the wake of a controversy about the political and self-interested character of the Rockefeller Foundation, the US Congress condemned the foundation as nothing more than a front for the industrial interests of one of the richest men in history, John D Rockefeller. </p>
<p>Rockefeller had wanted his foundation to focus on the “causes of industrial unrest” – this in the wake of a series of strikes for decent pay, conditions and union rights, which were bloodily suppressed by privately armed gangs in his own iron ore mines in Colorado.</p>
<p>It is unsurprising that exactly 100 years later, when the new corporate billionaires have set up their own philanthropic (or rather philanthro-capitalist) foundations, that a another public scandal is brewing around a major politico-philanthropist. After all, much this wave of billionaires derive their corporate wealth from the latest technological revolution, just as the Rockefellers and Carnegies set up theirs during the post-US Civil war era of rapid industrialisation. </p>
<p>And in terms of wealth at least, America is <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/11/daily-chart-2">just as unequal and polarised a society today</a> as it was when Rockefeller came under fire: in 1916, the richest 0.1% owned around 20% of total wealth, and today, the percentage is even higher, at around 25%.</p>
<h2>Political animals</h2>
<p>Politics is a fundamental raison d'être for American philanthropists, despite their foundations’ loud proclamations of non-partisanship and independence from both big business and the state.</p>
<p>The Clinton Foundation’s role has long mirrored and complemented the official approach of the US State Department, dealing as it does in microcredit initiatives, free-market boosterism, corporate-linked development strategies, and “partnership-building” above, through and beneath state structures. </p>
<p>In a way, it’s better to think of organisations such as the Clintons’ not as lobbying and fundraising foundations, but as tax-exempt intelligence-gathering bodies and diplomatic powerhouses. Their ultimate role is to channel American influence around the world and create lasting bonds to ensure stability in formal relations.</p>
<p>Working along these lines, foundations have been at the core of American “soft power” for a century, embedding American influence in difficult places. China is a core example.</p>
<p>American philanthropic organisations are now firmly embedded as major presences in Chinese territory. Since at least the 1970s, while public relationships between US politicians and their Chinese counterparts have fluctuated between politeness and <em>froideur</em>, American foundations have kept up a massive programme of complex bond-building work across the Pacific.</p>
<p>Independent of any explicitly articulated US government policies, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations – among many others – have long been establishing inroads and building major operations within China. The Ford Foundation, for example, has had an office in Beijing since 1978, from which it engages in developing the “rule of law”, efficient local election machinery, and greater non-governmental organisation activity. But in reality, most its efforts have focused more on <a href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233168023_Organizational_Homophily_in_International_Grantmaking_US-Based_Foundations_and_their_Grantees_in_China">stabilising Chinese society</a> rather than democratising it. </p>
<p>It is the long-term work of these foundations that has made China and the US’s present interdependency virtually unbreakable. Yes, the US is reliant on goods from the East – and benefits increasingly from the hundreds of thousands of students and tourists that come to its shores – but the relationship works both ways. </p>
<p>US firms and other organisations have major presences in China, which is happy to accommodate their investment and avoid doing anything to turn them off.</p>
<p>This is the reality that a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign will have to negotiate. And while it may not do her any favours, the unflattering attention directed at the Clinton foundation might help shed some light on a hitherto very cloistered wing of America’s society and economy. </p>
<p>Foundations such as the Clintons’ are some of the world’s largest and most closed institutions, even as they are part of one of the world’s most open societies. In the interests of propriety and morality, their doors need to be opened, and their activities subject to meaningful democratic scrutiny.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38123/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Inderjeet Parmar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As she plans her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton is getting embroiled in the sort of influence-peddling fiasco that has dogged philanthropists for decades.Inderjeet Parmar, Professor in International Politics, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/378762015-02-27T11:09:51Z2015-02-27T11:09:51ZPolitical CSR: why companies and foreign governments give to foundations like Clinton’s<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html">Questions are being raised</a> about the purpose and possible influence of corporate and foreign government donations to the Clinton Foundation. This is a high-profile issue now because former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a presumed 2016 presidential candidate. </p>
<p>What is the purpose of such donations? What do companies and governments expect in return when they give hundreds of millions of dollars to foundations like hers? </p>
<p>Philanthropy has a deep history in the relationship between business and society, and much of it is embraced by companies expecting to be thought of as good corporate citizens because of their <a href="https://www.academia.edu/419517/Corporate_Social_Responsibility_Evolution_of_a_Definitional_Construct">corporate social responsibility</a> (CSR) initiatives. One of the largest categories of CSR is philanthropic donations to foundations, charities and nonprofits. </p>
<p>Corporate giving has morphed, especially in Europe, into a more political activity as companies have increasingly taken on responsibilities traditionally left to governments. This is one aspect of the developing field known as <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00950.x/full">political CSR</a>. In part, it involves businesses engaging in political activity via philanthropy – often seen as lobbying – to help bring about a more beneficial business or social environment.</p>
<h2>Enlightened corporate self-interest</h2>
<p>Companies make donations to foundations and different groups for a <a href="http://cecp.co/pdfs/giving_in_numbers/GivinginNumbers2011.pdf">variety of reasons</a>. Over the past several decades it has become evident that these donations are not made primarily out of a general sense of altruism but rather because companies expect some identifiable payoff in return. In terms of motivations for giving, companies report that most of their giving is for community investments that also help the companies and a smaller amount is categorized as “commercial,” in which the companies are the primary beneficiary. </p>
<p>For businesses, historically, a major benefit of being socially responsible has been the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00275.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=true">enlightened self-interest argument</a>: it is in a business’s long-term self-interest to dole out shareholder earnings to charities. Philanthropy and corporate contributions in particular are a major part of this.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/ijmr.12049/asset/ijmr12049.pdf;jsessionid=237D3BDE11FAF56D41DD53B58D7637C9.f03t02?v=1&t=i6mdhnu6&s=b6e331bb8cff84fdacbd5c6fcdbec5f728d38c7e">more practical reason</a> is that being socially responsible will help to ward off or shape government regulations and indirectly boost profits. In the global context, this has become a frequent practice as multinational enterprises have sought to mold the infrastructure and governance of nations in which they invest and locate. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://cecp.co/research/benchmarking-reports/giving-in-numbers.html">recent survey</a> of 261 of the world’s biggest companies showed that more than half of them increased their philanthropy in 2013 by at least 10%. </p>
<p>This pattern of businesses aligning their giving with expected financial benefits sought in return is now the <a href="https://www.academia.edu/419290/The_Business_Case_for_Corporate_Social_Responsibility_A_Review_of_Concepts_Research_and_Practice">current state of affairs</a> among large companies.</p>
<h2>Donations and the bottom line</h2>
<p>What are the benefits to the bottom-line companies are seeking? Many answers have been given to this question, such as gaining competitive advantage, more deeply engaging customers and employees, or enhancing reputation and legitimacy with society. Some companies are simply mimicking what other large businesses are doing. </p>
<p>Ultimately, corporate executives and their boardroom overseers are most concerned that such donations have a positive impact on their company’s profitability – or at least a benign one. They are the guardians of its financial welfare and bear ultimate responsibility to shareholders when giving away corporate resources. Increasingly, they are required to <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/management/business-ethics/corporate-responsibility-american-experience">justify that CSR</a> activities and corporate giving are consistent with the <a href="http://truist.com/what-is-strategic-philanthropy">firm’s strategies</a> and financial sustainability. </p>
<p>Companies have traditionally tried to affect the work of government by lobbying the merits or demerits of a piece of legislation or helping get a friendly politician elected to high office. The ultimate aim is to bring about a more favorable environment in which to sell their goods and services and return more profits to their shareholders. </p>
<p>Making donations provides an alternate route to the same end. Though companies are reluctant to say it, it acts as an indirect method of influence. In tacit return for their beneficence, they likewise expect to create goodwill, establish or improve political connections or favors, and be able to support or defeat legislation through contributions to foundations that are important to the legislators they hope to influence. </p>
<p>To use a current example, this is where the Clinton Foundation – which gives money to a variety of charitable causes – enters the discussion. It’s hard to pinpoint why exactly a company or foreign government is making a particular donation to a charity, such as the Clinton Foundation. But one could easily argue that a return favor is expected after a deposit is made. Recent reports have identified specific instances in which such a favor was sought – and granted.</p>
<h2>You scratch my back…</h2>
<p>The Wall Street Journal cited several such examples in a recent <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corporate-ties-1424403002">investigative report</a> on corporate giving to the Clinton Foundation. In one reported case in 2012, the WSJ stated that Hilary Clinton lobbied the Algerian government on behalf of General Electric to pick the US company to build power plants there. A month later, the foundation announced a partnership between itself and GE, along with a donation of $500,000 to $1 million. Months later GE won the contract with the Algerians. </p>
<p>In another 2012 case, the WSJ reported that Walmart pledged to donate $12 million to a public-private partnership Clinton created at the State Department and $500,000 to a charity she had helped create. One month later, during a trip to India, she lobbied against the country’s ban on retail stores such as Walmart. Later, former President Clinton asked Walmart’s CEO, Mike Duke, to change his schedule so he could be on a panel at the Clinton Global Initiative. </p>
<p>The WSJ reported that in some cases donations came after Mrs Clinton helped a company and in others the donations came before she took action. Sometimes the donations came both before and after.</p>
<h2>Foreign governments give with similar motives</h2>
<p>Doubtless this is why foreign governments would want to make such contributions as well – to influence outcomes of elections, sway government leaders to support legislation, or to gain contracts or programs in their favor. </p>
<p>Why else would a foreign government make a donation to a US foundation, especially one that carries a prominent name such as Clinton?</p>
<p>This is an especially attractive strategy as they seek to bring foreign funds back into their countries. Like lobbying, there is not always an immediate, direct quid pro quo, also like lobbying, it makes it hard for the recipients to be objective and to ignore the needs and wants of the donors. An example of this would be when a country donates to an American foundation in hopes that the company sponsoring the foundation would be more favorably disposed to building a manufacturing plant in that country. </p>
<p>The Clinton Foundation reportedly suspended donations from foreign governments to the foundation when she became secretary of state, but since she left her post that suspension <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-foundation-to-reconsider-foreign-donations-if-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president-1424386491">has been lifted</a>. Donations by foreign governments have been noticeably rising again thus putting this issue in the headlines once more. </p>
<h2>The ethics of receiving such donations</h2>
<p>Is it ethical to accept such donations from corporations or governments while one is running for national office or holding office? With billions of dollars at stake, the question of a real or perceived conflict of interest undoubtedly arises. And Democrats themselves have said it’s not, according to the WSJ article.</p>
<p>In this case, however, it’s the foreign donations that are of particular concern, since no American would accept one of their leaders being unduly influenced by another government. Foreign governments are not allowed to give money to US political campaigns, making their donations to the Clinton Foundation look like a side-door way to influence the likely Democratic nominee for president. </p>
<p>Corporate giving, on the other hand, is easier to justify. </p>
<p>The quickest way to make this a non-issue would be for the Clinton Foundation to reinstate the ban immediately as long as she is politically active. And in fact the foundation has announced recently that it is <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-foundation-to-reconsider-foreign-donations-if-hillary-clinton-runs-for-president-1424386491">reconsidering</a> whether it should do just that. </p>
<p>In the case of corporate giving, it is vital for the public and all stakeholders to have confidence that philanthropy is done for legitimate purposes and not for exercising political power to gain advantage. The ethical high road requires that companies be transparent and not attempt to abuse their strong economic resources perhaps in a quest to sidestep campaign finance regulations. </p>
<p>CSR is primarily about improving society not augmenting business’s influence. To do otherwise is to invite further government regulations, and who wants this? Certainly not the business community.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37876/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Archie B Carroll does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The ethics surrounding corporate and foreign donations to the foundations of politicians are murky, but it’s hard to deny the givers are angling for influence.Archie B Carroll, Professor of Management Emeritus, University of GeorgiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/191892013-10-16T00:31:24Z2013-10-16T00:31:24ZOf Forrests and acorns: philanthropic gift may seed other university giving<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/33099/original/7tc96jt7-1381880960.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Will philanthropy in Australia change because of the recent donation by Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest to Wes Australian universities.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Seed image from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>This week’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-14/forrest-to-make-largest-donation-by-an-australian/5021936">A$65 million pledge</a> by Nicola and Andrew Forrest to all five West Australian universities alters the philanthropy landscape in Australia. The Forrests’ donation comes less than a year after Louise and Graham Tuckwell’s A$50 million donation to Australian National University.</p>
<p>Not long ago, some of the larger philanthropic funding of Australian universities emanated from the US – either through mega-generosity like <a href="http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/history-and-founder">businessman Chuck Feeney’s Atlantic Philanthropies</a> or from big stateside foundations.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, the university sector more frequently sees more moderate scale donations, and these are mostly only given after the institution has worked on developing relationships with people who care or might care about higher education. All these gifts are needed and welcomed but both the magnitude and leverage of the Forrest’s pledge merits particular comment.</p>
<p>Like Feeney, the Forrests (the first Australians to join the <a href="http://givingpledge.org/pdf/letters/Forrest_Letter.pdf">Gates’ Giving Pledge</a>) have talked openly about their contribution as a way to model large generosity in a country where giving happens often anonymously and well below need or potential. </p>
<p>In fact in Australia, sometimes it doesn’t happen at all. High net worth giving is <a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/40336/">not the norm here</a>. Tax data consistently confirms about <a href="http://eprints.qut.edu.au/61719/">four out of ten affluent Australians</a> give nothing. There’s no doubt that Australia’s culture of moe sustained and talked about large giving could certainly be improved. </p>
<p>The Forrests set out to inspire, and even though theirs is reportedly the largest single gift ever made by an Australian couple, it is more than just the impressive amount that might do that. The choice of scholarships and post-docs as the beneficiaries squarely applies some sound philanthropic strategies: funding good people and matching opportunity with dollars. </p>
<p>It showcases where the smart money thinks others should invest. Not everybody can fund a suite of scholarships but given the <a href="http://theconversation.com/ten-years-on-australians-are-a-picture-of-wealth-15104">increase in wealth over the past decade here</a> many Australians could fund one scholarship in their field of passion.</p>
<p>This pledge is unique in that it funds a state in its bid to be more of a knowledge force and it is a state that has lagged in giving despite <a href="http://www.lotterywest.wa.gov.au/assets/grants/documents/publications/a-rising-tide">its cornucopia of mining wealth</a>. The donation also embraces all WA’s universities rather than just Andrew Forrest’s alma mater, the University of Western Australia (UWA), although A$15 million is apparently earmarked for a world leading residential college there. At UWA, the Forrests’ input is the confidence boost and attention grabber that invigorates a $400 million fundraising program.</p>
<p>But will others follow? As a general rule, giving research across the world and locally confirms the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1015507">link between education and giving</a>: those with higher education give more partly due to higher income and partly to higher awareness of need through wide networks. It is likely we will see more university graduates giving back over time, especially as the alumni and development function within Australian universities matures. </p>
<p>Many alumni and development offices here are less than two decades old and in a scenario where lengthy relationships and trust are at the core of giving, the plantations of philanthropy have not been long enough cultivated by much of the higher education sector. </p>
<p>The Forrest gift is the proof that untapped major giving exists in this country and it may spur other university and foundation boards to put in more effort (that is, funding and prioritising) to engage the community’s mind and heart. It also is tangible evidence to governments that philanthropy can be a viable funding partner that strengthens education strategies. Matched giving by government that has triggered strong donations to higher education in some Asian countries, and initiatives like the UK government’s support for fundraising infrastructure in universities, are all worth considering here.</p>
<p>Universities these days reflect a wide range of funding sources, from government to corporations, from individuals to philanthropic foundations and the lines between these sources are sometimes blurred. Corporations that can see a synergy of interest may fund scholarships or chairs in their discipline and individuals may fund where their personal linkages, experiences or beliefs lead them. </p>
<p>The challenge for universities is to locate the synergies and their own pool of “true believers” in education and the array of community benefit that comes from university teaching and research opens many avenues. </p>
<p>The linkages and benefits that the Forrests have identified in their action are a strong object lesson not just for other givers but for universities to ponder. Most academic causes will have their logical link to a giving source. That’s where development comes in. Relationships are key but it takes prioritised time and budget for universities to develop them.</p>
<p>So this pledge directs the focus of government and graduates to universities as a giving destination at a time when giving is settling back into growth post-GFC. </p>
<p>Mostly though, it is a thought starter for other Australian figures of success. Research tells us that people give according to their value (income) but more so according to their values. The Forrest’s pledge says: this is what our work and lives stand for. </p>
<p>The “stop and pause” power of what Nicola and Andrew Forrest have pledged may well cause others to reflect on what their dollars might do and whether the proverbial bigger boat really is a symbol of whom and what they are. To me this is the real Forrest’s acorn that they have planted here.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/19189/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wendy Scaife does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>This week’s A$65 million pledge by Nicola and Andrew Forrest to all five West Australian universities alters the philanthropy landscape in Australia. The Forrests’ donation comes less than a year after…Wendy Scaife, Senior Research Fellow, QUT Business School, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.