By James Piereson & Naomi Schaefer Riley
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
The purpose of corporate philanthropy has been a subject
of debate for several decades. Milton Friedman and others have said that
corporate philanthropy should serve shareholders and employees, in which case
it should be aligned with basic corporate purposes. After all, they argue,
those funds belong to the shareholders, not to the public or to the executives
deciding how to allocate charitable dollars. But in the real world, corporate
philanthropy is often used for other purposes — to express the charitable
interests of executives, for example, or to win goodwill in the local
community, or to shield the corporation from criticism by organized advocacy
groups. These are issues that have been raised anew by General Motors’ recent
announcement that it plans to change the way it allocates $30 million in
charitable donations every year.
In what some described as a blow to local nonprofits in
Detroit, Jackie Parker, director of GM global philanthropy and corporate
giving, explained:
What we’re more interested in
funding is programs so that we can measure societal impact and have a
deliverable back to our shareholders and the folks that are interested,
investors, potential consumers, potential employees, and show them what
difference General Motors is making in the community.
Though Parker and her colleagues have yet to announce
which groups will lose funding, it appears from the announcement that they will
be small nonprofit operations, especially those associated with the arts. Juanita
Moore, president of the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History,
noted at a recent panel that she was worried about what would happen to her
institution if GM changed its philanthropic strategy.
How is GM’s money likely to be spent? According to the Detroit News:
GM’s giving arm wants to use its
dollars to more closely align with its corporate mission: to improve vehicle
safety and reduce accidents and injuries; to advance education in the areas of
science, technology, engineering, and math; and to increase high-school
graduation rates in cities.
There are those who will accuse GM of being less
“charitable” because it’s directing its efforts in ways more aligned with its
corporate interests — training a future work force, improving safety, and
supporting advances in technology. According to such critics, corporate
philanthropy is not really charity unless it operates independently or even in
conflict with corporate interests. This is why we sometimes witness the
spectacle of corporations incongruously sending funds to staunch critics and
adversaries.
But this new direction of philanthropy for GM may prove
to be a better use of its resources (even from the viewpoint of the local
community) than funding local arts programs or other nonprofits unrelated to
its corporate mission. One could make the case that it will be much more in the
public interest for companies such as GM to become more involved in college and
high-school education. And it would also benefit the companies themselves to
get more involved in college and high schools because those institutions are
now doing a poor job of training future workers and corporate leaders.
In Detroit, for example, the high-school graduation rate
has been rising, but student achievement remains abysmally poor. According to
Marc Perry of the American Enterprise Institute, Detroit’s is “the nation’s
worst-performing urban school district, where only 6 percent of its high school
students are proficient in math, only 4 percent are proficient in science, and
only one-third are proficient in reading.” These are not youngsters being
prepared for the knowledge economy, let alone for skilled positions at an
automobile company.
If GM could so something to improve local schools —
perhaps subsidize a STEM-focused charter school or even start its own
associates degree program for high-school students to learn the skills they
need to be hired by a company like GM — these would go a long way toward
helping the community and, not incidentally, the company itself.
Currently, however, the philanthropic arms of many
companies are giving in ways that directly contradict their mission. Oil and
fossil-fuel companies such as BP have a long history of giving to environmental
groups in order, some might speculate, to deflect criticism from the green
lobby. According to Time magazine,
for instance, “between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million
in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of
Chesapeake Energy,” one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the United
States.
But even when corporations do not fund their adversaries,
their funds are often spent on institutions irrelevant to their corporate
goals. Art museums, symphony orchestras, soup kitchens, shelters for the homeless,
well-connected civic groups — all of these have become dependent on corporate
giving in order to survive. While they may be worthwhile institutions, they do
not have a claim on corporate funds. Moreover, they might be better served by
abandoning corporate support and identifying local donors that have greater
personal commitment to their causes.
Lenore Ealy, president of the Philanthropic Enterprise,
says that corporate philanthropy has actually aggravated some structural
problems in the charitable sector. As she points out, many nonprofit
organizations, LIKE corporations in the Rust Belt in decades gone by, “operate
on long-running expectations rather than consistent repeated value creation.”
Since there is no market test for their operations, nonprofits tend to go along
with what has worked in the past without feeling any need to adjust to changing
circumstances. Because corporate philanthropy is more concerned with
appearances — with pleasing the right politicians and local leaders and getting
positive press coverage — than with whether these institutions are doing a good
job, they continue giving without evidence that these nonprofits are
accomplishing anything of real value. The two sides of the transaction thus
reinforce their own worst tendencies.
Moreover, many of the executives in charge of giving away
money have no capacity to evaluate the nonprofit organizations or to assess the
value and impact of their corporate donations. There is also the possibility
that they will simply aim to enhance their own reputations by supporting causes
they do not understand or even care about. Just recently, for example, Delta
Airlines and Bank of America were forced to beat a hasty retreat from their
support for New York’s Public Theater after they learned the company was
mounting a production of Julius Caesar starring a Donald Trump lookalike.
If companies want to use philanthropy to improve their
reputations or serve some public relations objective, then (wisdom aside) they
have every right to do that. But GM’s executives have a good point: It may be
better to stick with what they know.
No comments:
Post a Comment