open Democracy News Analysis - Philanthropy’s business benefit , Stewart J Paperin - Comments

srheywood on "Philanthropy’s business benefit "

srheywood — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:16:40 +0100

What you're saying Mark is that it's somehow magically impossible for large profit-driven companies to even dream of exploiting the communities with which they do business. Clearly it's not impossible at all. It happens every day.

edwarmi@hotmail.com on "Philanthropy’s business benefit "

edwarmi@hotmail.com — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:45:09 +0100

I thought Mark lived in South Africa but from his post he's obviously relocated to Disneyland. To say that there are no conflicts of interest between business objectives and social transformation is pure fantasy. Stewart Paperin lauds Coca Cola while ignoring the fact that they are being sued for sucking up groundwater illlegally in India. Mark Surman gushes that Wikipedia is supported by philanthrocapitalists because they want to transform the economy (no connection with increasing demand for computer hardware and software then Mark?). And even BRAC in Bangladesh doesn't claim to "reach the poorest", because the poorest can't be reached by markets - they don't have the assets. "Just Another Emperor" is full of examples of these conflicts of interest and they are not going to go away.

Mark Surman on "Philanthropy’s business benefit "

Mark Surman — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:45:44 +0100

srheywood says: "The problem with "win-win" is that it is inherently vulnerable to conflicts of interest." Um, actually, no. The point of real win-win is that the successful pursuit of my *self interest* reinforces or at least does not hinder the successful pursuit of your self interest. So, in a private / community partnership, win-win means that a companies pursuit of profits also benefits the community group or whoever it is that is pursuing a social change goal. That's the logic behind entities like BRAC, which are not tiny cooperatives but rather large, business-like organizations dedicated to helping people move beyond a subsistence livelihood.

srheywood on "Philanthropy’s business benefit "

srheywood — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:18:21 +0100

1) Philanthrocapitalism is based on "win-win" rather than "zero-sum" assumptions - "I can profit personally while benefiting others" rather than "I have to give outright in order for others to benefit." The problem with "win-win" is that it is inherently vulnerable to conflicts of interest. If you are doing philanthropy for profit, you are likely to come up against moments of decision where you have to sacrifice profit for philanthropy or the other way about. There is always a strong risk that the profit motive will win out and the philanthropy become spin.

2) This article seems to assume that a vast global corporation is essentially the same class of entity as a tiny co-operative self-help group in the majority world, because both are devices for trading in markets. OK, but there are massive differences of power, purpose, modus operandi and outcome. The last I heard of Coca-Cola they were sucking up groundwater from drought-stricken rural communities in India and trying to dodge the blame in the courts, in a way which is somewhat beyond the resources and intentions of your average village fruit-farming co-operative, even if it does rely on micro-credit for start-up capital. If Coca-Cola and others like them have now started to clean up their act a bit, then, it's probably due in large measure exactly because (to borrow their own words) they know they're likely to get "bashed" by civil society, including those same old-fashioned non-profit NGOs, if they don't. if their intentions were good, you'd think they'd welcome the dialogue, but all they seem to do is complain about the interference, with that "Atlas Shrugged" air of harrassed self-pity which you only ever seem to see in rich people who suspect that someone is interfering with their God-given right to the money.

I had one small try at doing a "community" style project with a big corporation back in the nineties, and I wouldn't perrsonally do it again. There's no integrity in it. In my experience these institutions aren't designed to do good, they're designed to make money, and they want you to provide a bit of spin and nothing more. It was only the one project but it's 100% of my experience of the corporate sector!

Philanthropy’s business benefit , Stewart J Paperin

opendemocracy — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:41:46 +0100

In his article "Philanthrocapitalism: after the goldrush" (19 March 2008) Michael Edwards raises several serious questions about mixing business principles with philanthropic objectives and elevates the debate about the utility of a market-oriented approach to philanthropy. Edwards focuses particularly on the question of whether or not a focus on profits or business principles helps or hinders an organisation to successfully achieve longer-term social objectives, and he is quite critical of the potential outcomes.

Read the rest of this post...