Anonimity Has Its Place

On 24 February, The New York Times carried an article by Steve Lohr entitled ‘A Capitalist Jolt for Charity’.  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/business/24social.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin (free log in).   It was reporting that:  “The process (Capitalist Jolts for Charity) is being pushed forward by a new breed of social entrepreneurs who are administering increasing doses of bottom-line thinking to traditional philanthropy in order to make charity more effective”  “Various efforts like this are appearing across the philanthropic landscape as business-minded donors. epitomised by Bill and Melina Gates and their foundation, have treated their charitable contributions like venture capital investments.  They seek programs that can be catalysts for broad changes in fields like health, education and the environment, they measure performance and results and they encourage nonprofits to become more self-sustaining.” 

Frankly, I don’t believe a word of it.  Business doesn’t even do business very well ( sub-prime mortgages, Enron, dot-com bubble, etc) so what possible reason is there to believe that wealthy individuals who run businesses will do charity better?  Why did Warren Buffett hand his fortune to the Gates Foundation?  Because, famously, he sticks to what he knows.  11% increase in his company Berkshire Hathaway’s asset value last year against 5.5% in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index.

 Years ago I remember a conversation with a colleague in BP’s Public Affairs Department.  BP had decided to run seminars to teach senior charity executives modern business methods because at that time they believed charities were badly managed and BP was well managed.  I welcomed the initiative but suggested that, in order to start on a level playing field, BP stopped selling fuel at the pumps and instead asked for a charitable contribution for each tank full!  Then BP would experience the challenge facing charities.  The plan for seminars was modified.

Most charities don’t sell services, and they need money, so they don’t say No to wealthy individuals.  In some cases generous gifts allow the donor to significantly influence the way the charity is run.  Of course, the donors may be a useful addition to a board, but where is the evidence to say that they are a catalyst for good systemic change and not peddlers of the latest business theories? 

The publicity surrounding huge gifts to charity confers a kind of sainthood that was once only available through religion.  Big donors bask in the reflected glory of the millions of ordinary men and women who care deeply, give generously, and volunteer their services to charity, many with full-time jobs and family responsibilities at the same time.  It is the millions of these supporters that give many charities their enviable brand reputation.  These are the people charity depends on.  The huge gifts may enable charities to do incredible things, but they don’t define what a charity is really about. 

Perhaps most worryingly, donors who give huge gifts are unaccountable.  If gifts over a certain size had to remain anonymous would that mean no more huge gifts?  Of course not.  There are always a very significant number of anonymous gifts, some very large, most small.  But it would reduce the influence of the donors by depriving them of what Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher call “the oxygen of publicity.”

 Charities, at their best, confront the big issues and try and clear up the mess made by human relationships, the natural world, business and politics.  They give ordinary people the opportunity of making a meaningful contribution of time and money.  And for the most part charities survive on relatively small amounts of money.  Let’s have more anonymous donations, and the bigger the better!  More money, and less influence from wealthy individuals.