Giving that means something, linking climate and development challenges and responsible business’s personal touch

Strategic philanthropy: an insider’s view

Having served 12 years as chief executive of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Paul Brest has played an integral role in the “strategic philanthropy” movement. Having stepped down from the post, he’s not above admitting that there’s “more talk than action”. All the same, it’s been a rollercoaster ride for “outcome-orientated” giving, as this paper’s opening historical and institutional overview makes abundantly clear.

Ever since Michael Porter and Mark Kramer’s 1999 article – Philanthropy’s New Agenda: Creating Value – it’s become harder and harder for rich individuals to simply sign a cheque and walk away. Today, giving is all about setting goals, establishing targets and devising metrics. So, much like a day in the office then.

To borrow from the title of the Financial Times magazine, one on-going question for strategic philanthropists is “how to spend it?”. Philanthropic buying, providing risk and growth capital, and impact investing are the three main options, Brest suggests. The first shows “least gains”, yet it remains the preferred approach. Why? Because the other two are dastardly difficult to get right. If cash giving isn’t the whole answer, then what else can philanthropists do? Problem-solve. Examples from within the Hewlett Foundation – brokering, linking organisations, policy advocacy, etc – provide a valuable insider perspective on how this works in practice.

As for what lies ahead for the movement, expect more by way of social media in crowdsourcing, design thinking and the like. More pay-for-performance schemes and other outcome-driven financial innovations are on the cards, too. In terms of challenges, the perennial problem of scaling up successful strategies still lurks. Oh, and some “self-imposed transparency” on the part of rich philanthropists wouldn’t go amiss either.

Brest, P, Spring 2012, “A Decade of Outcome-Oriented Philanthropy”, Stanford Innovation Review, 10 (1).

Climate and development: awkward bedfellows?

During the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the UK government launched the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership. The initiative does what it says on the tin: 246 partners, €16m in resources and more than 100 projects, all focused on using public funds to stimulate business participation in the investment of renewables and energy efficiency. Reeep represents a new kind of multistakeholder partnership approach, the authors maintain. The idea of working across sectors is not what’s new. It’s the focus of the partnership that’s novel: namely, the linking up of climate change with sustainable development.

Similar examples remain scant, but the authors spot a trend. Companies certainly seem to like the idea of linking the twin challenges of our age. Of the early experiments so far – notably in areas such as rural electrification, sustainable transport and energy efficiency – corporations feature regularly. Yet their role is often “passive”, the authors note. That’s especially (and understandably) true when the multistakeholder partnership in question aims to address gaps in regulation or to set up standards. Where companies come more into their own is in the provision of financial resources, skills and specialised knowledge.

Though unwilling to be party-poopers, Kolk and Pinkse have their reservations about these new multisectoral efforts. Of course, synergies exist between climate change and sustainable development. Think of low-carbon transport policies in urban areas. Notwithstanding, the trade-offs are substantial. As with Reeep, most hybrid partnerships primarily aim to tap new markets, be it for renewable energy, carbon credits or the like. That fits with business rationale, but it means development-climate change linkages can quickly become a “secondary co-benefit” at best.

Kolk, Ans & Pinkse J, March 2012, “Addressing the Climate Change-Sustainable Development Nexus: The Role of Multistakeholder Partnerships”, Business & Society, 51 (1).

We are the corporation

The business of business is, well, no longer just business. Corporations large and small alike are expected to be good citizens, environmental stewards and all round champions of social justice. The reasons for this transition are well-documented; their employees and customers expect it, their economic power encourages it, their negative impacts demand it, etc. But what if all this giving-something-back approach is deflecting attention from the real ethical issues at hand? That’s the question posed by this intelligent, provocative paper.

The umbrella term of corporate social responsibility needs a revamp, the authors argue. Their revised conception revolves around social theory, key to which is the idea that social obligations are primarily personal; ie obligations of people to each other. As CSR currently stands, the emphasis is on a corporation’s obligations to others. Yet companies are not separate from larger systems that operate in global society. Nor are they any more responsible to society than the individuals who constitute them.

Hence we, as employees, must become more accountable for the social roles that business plays. Legal norms currently prohibit that – something the authors would like to see changed. Turning institutional norms on their head is no easy task, but the idea that corporate social responsibility should start with the people that impact corporations, rather than vice versa, is certainly worthy of more consideration.

Ludescher, J et al, March 2012, “We Are the Corporation: Dispersive”, Business and Society Review 117 (1).  

Campus news

Sustainable finance expert Iveta Cherneva has been appointed to the Nato/G8 Summit Young Atlanticist Network, an initiative of the Atlantic Council, a Washington DC-based thinktank.

Campus group NetImpact has launched an online Career Centre for graduates looking for jobs in sustainability at netimpact.org/careers. 



Related Reads

comments powered by Disqus