A OneWorld garland on the Gates

Agreeing to disagree

Somehow, it would appear that on some issues that pertain to corporate social responsibility and really getting things done to bring that into sharp focus, I would be at variance with my fellow blogger at Black Looks.

Like the subject of my last entry, Bill and Melinda Gates are back in the fray having been nominated by OneWorld.net as Persons of the Year 2006 – as it were, in the piece One world sycophants, not only does the proponent castigate the award on the displeasure of the news that the foundation that the Gates’ founded invests in companies that have poor corporate social responsibility ratings, this investment exposé is now becoming the measure by which all other good works of this foundation is viewed and by that, negatively.

The advocacy goes on to encourage readers to challenge the nomination on the basis of their investing in these companies without any regard for what good work they are involved in.

The rise of philanthro-phobia

Unfortunately, I do not share the views on this matter as we now see with celebrity adoptions, Oprah’s school, voices against poverty, war and genocide; there is a swell of philanthro-phobia where an activism of seeming to know what is best, how best, who best, where best, if best, whether better – of qualified and charlatan anthropologists who crystal ball the effects of every good deed that should come to nought because it does not fit into a some pre-conceived concept of giving and saintly sinlessness.

Carlos Slim who is from Mexico where his people are crossing the border to the north in droves is the 3rd richest man in the world behind Bill and Warren.

He must be glad that he is not directly involved in the kind of philanthropy that his other rich peers have engaged in.

Having been stung for being tight-fisted and parsimonious, he offered to match dollar for dollar every charitable donation made in Mexico; however, all this bad press that some philanthropists are receiving because, we are beginning to burden them with responsibilities that other legitimate organs have failed to implement as their fiduciary and appointed duties, might have some generous hearts thinking twice.

What do we expect from philanthropists?

I use the word burden with conviction because it is not the responsibility of philanthropists to take on functions of government and legislature, even in areas of full social responsibility, and though some have espoused those causes, real change would only come with a concerted international agreement of binding standards as we are beginning to see with the issue of global warming issues.

Philanthropists are going from the usual "write a cheque and walk away" approach into an involved and participatory occupation of giving with good sense; however, it would seem they have walked into a sociological minefield and come against the meanness of left-wing activism.

Oprah exemplifies that situation when the government, the architects and the people could not latch onto her vision for an exclusive school for would-be leaders who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Typical anthropologists could not see the good fortune that would befall the girls, rather, more were concerned that such poor girls must not be served up this quality of life – I really find that outlook utterly, utterly deplorable.

Maybe all these foundations should withdraw into a hands-off situation where they supervise nothing but throw money at inefficient, bureaucracy-laden NGOs and corrupt governments.

Activism versus persuasive dialogue

This crusade for corporate responsibility and full social responsibility has to be tempered with the fact that these people are within their rights not to give any of their money if all this activism goes on denigrating and antagonising their philanthropism - then what?

Definitely, we should bring issues to the attention of these philanthropists, if our arguments are compelling enough, indeed, they would take these burning issues on board than if we congregated outside their gates in civil disturbance with placards of unhelpful platitudes and abuse or what is now the Internet equivalent of activism through blogs and similar outlets. I don’t do marches and I don’t do protests, I do negotiations, agreements and settlements.

I would be writing to support the award from One World as I believe that the march to social responsibility is on-going - if with our democracies, our liberties and our freedoms and most especially our governments and international agencies we have not been able to enforce this drive for full social responsibility - why pick on philanthropists to enforce issues we have failed to garner support for through what should be the appropriate channels?

A self-defeating crusade

This crusade is wrong-headed, poorly-argued and radically mis-directed - for all intents and purposes - that One World nomination for Bill and Melinda Gates is well deserved in my humble opinion, in the light of the good they have done and brought to people who need help.

One other thing is persuasion through dialogue can reach further than when activists dig trenches, because of the disordered representation, lobbyists are engaged to infiltrate their ranks and the discredit their stance – this kind of activism seizes the headlines but in achieving its goals there is a seething atmosphere of animosity – No, definitely not my thing.

Standing in the Gates for probity

The gates of infamy will not prevail

This is a comment in response to a blog on Black Looks titled Opening and Closing the Gates on poor corporate social responsibility investments in the light of grand philanthropic initiatives, the subject being the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

One cannot argue with the point that the foundation is on the one hand sponsoring global health initiatives and then investing on all these other firms. I must say the Los Angeles Times study does make poor attributable reading as a clear example of treatment juxtaposed with probably causative environments is illustrated.

More interestingly, the subject is in Nigeria where the worst of environmental crimes have been committed, the rape of the people, their land and dignity has been without let such that the region is a hotspot of insurgency that impacts on global oil prices.

Foundations need to grow

I am however, sure those oil companies are not the only areas in which the foundations have invested funds and oil companies are working at improving their corporate social responsibility being urged on by people of influence; these are shareholders – further down in the study it does show that some foundations are getting involved in shareholder activism, however, this is not their core purpose.

Foundations also cannot stagnate by just having a pot of money and spending it, they have to keep the funds in an organic state, hopefully of growth - using available market economies to maximise returns that would go to affect individual people's lives all around the world.

Investor dynamics make money

Warren Buffett the investor who contributed the largest personal philanthropic gift last year did not gain such financial muscle from investing in companies that have no economic future through some socialist and Utopia ideal, some of his ideas would probably play in the investment decisions of the foundation.

This is not to say that ethical investment is the exclusive preserve of socialist or liberal persuasion.

In the end, if rotten companies are to be influenced, the message is better sent by being a notable shareholder that would be noticed than being a non-investor who cannot affect the bottom-line and the decision matrix of the organisation.

In how many pies?

Yes, Bill and Melinda should try to keep an eye on where the foundation invests, their 15 Guiding Principles allude to that, the study goes on to state that 41% or $8.7 billion of the foundation’s assets are invested in corporations that that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially concerned philosophy.

Now, we have to make up our minds about how we respond to philanthropy, does the foundation take on the additional mantle of becoming a Greenpeace, Amnesty International and Médecins Sans Frontières as well as benefactor of these well funded global initiatives that they have embarked on?

Foundations do have to grow

This is a quote from the article in the LA Times – “This endowment is managed by Bill Gates Investments, which handles Gates' personal fortune. Monica Harrington, a senior policy officer at the foundation, said the investment managers had one goal: returns "that will allow for the continued funding of foundation programs and grant making." Bill and Melinda Gates require the managers to keep a highly diversified portfolio, but make no specific directives.”

Any organisation that needs to retain a influential profile in funding and grant making needs the best investment advice they can get and those are hardly schooled in Mother Theresa’s convent in Kolkata – most importantly, they need to have a highly diversified portfolio, and it would appear that probably up to 59% of the foundation’s funds are invested in ethically reassuring projects.

With the quality of returns that have come from oil and minerals over the last few years, it would crass stupidity for foundations not to avail themselves of possible returns from these industries.

These industries are people too

Many of these industries make up part of the socio-economic landscape of the affected communities that also receive treatment sponsored by these foundations, there are not enough “clean” jobs from “clean” companies to deal with unemployment in our globalised world.

However, it is incumbent on governments, corporations and their investors to tend to the civilisation of genuine corporate social responsibility, excluding charitable foundation funds from “rotten” organisations might as well affect the people the foundations offer to help; then the foundations would not only have to provide treatment, they would also have to take on socio-economic issues to handle hunger, shelter and security.

The burdens of expectation

We cannot place too great a social burden on philanthropic foundations and expect them to thrive in their goals, the study highlights issues that need to be addressed, dialogue and discourse between these journals and the foundations might create greater movement to deal with these issues than denigrating philanthropies with journalism that bears the likeness of social responsibility but is really opportunistic at best and unfairly deplorable at worst.

Disclaimer: I am no apologist for the foundation or the companies affected.