Mixed messages in philanthropy
Comments from leading philanthropists regarding personal verses corporate giving will create mixed messages for giving to charities, NGO’s and education.
Mr Bill Ferris is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney Morning Herald, 2010) stating that the future of Australian philanthropy lies with rich individuals and not corporations.
Citing comparisons from the US regarding the massive personal donations made by people such as Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet, not Microsoft or Berkshire Hathaway, Mr Ferris said he believed a similar model of giving should be undertaken in Australia.
Mr Ferris comments: ‘None of Australia’s dozen or more billionaires have yet seriously stepped up to the Australian philanthropic plate.’
While such billionaires are hardly likely to refute such a statement it appears Mr Ferris is biting the very hand of the philanthropists he claims should give more towards reputable and worthy causes.
While actual amounts given are generously guarded both by the individual donor and the recipient organisation, anecdotal evidence suggests that serious and considerable amounts are donated not just by people who may appear on the BRW rich list but by a host of significantly wealthy people who may not achieve such public luminary status.
Anyone who gives generously would feel highly aggrieved to believe that their level of donating was questioned or their contribution not graciously received.
Mr Ferris cites donation amounts raised by the Garvan Institute of Medical Research to justify his statement that the majority of major donations come from individual donors and not corporations, thereby drawing the conclusion that private wealth models should drive philanthropy, thereby effectively excluding corporations from contributing financial support.
Such broad brush statements fail to recognise the nuances and individuality of philanthropy. The issues, motivations and outcomes that drive gifts to medical research are completely different from decisions that impel corporations to assist education or worthy philanthropic causes (See the related article Striking a balance with corporate philanthropy www.eduMarketing.com.au )
Many US and Australian corporations actively and generously donate to institutional philanthropy.
Pharmaceutical and medical research in the US could not survive were it not for the financial underpinning by many US drug companies, some of which is hardly philanthropic altruism or has unequivocal commercial, intellectual property or research rights attached.
Corporate affiliations have and will continue to strengthen in many areas of the arts, music, drama and other cultural pursuits in both the US and Australia.
What will always remain a vexatious issue revolves around market demand for support and the limitations of financial supply to underpin philanthropic need.
An increasing number of worthy organisations and charities are becoming more highly skilled in approaching organisations which themselves are pressured to restrain philanthropic gifts.
Companies exist primarily to satisfy their own range of stakeholders and shareholders, not become financiers for multifarious NGO’s or not for profit groups however worthy their goals and mission.
While acknowledging the significance of key donors commentators within philanthropy should be encouraging more widespread financial support from business and the broader community.
Raising money is a hard enough task without chastising its supporters to even greater levels of philanthropy.
Australia’s richest not big givers to charity, Sydney Morning Herald, 24 February 2010, p 3. www.smh.com.au
Comments: