Can’t buy love?
So Diageo are going to fund midwives to educate pregnant women on the dangers of alcohol. What next? Perhaps Phillip Morris will sell nicotine patches? Maybe KFC should fund obesity research?
Is this window dressing or something more genuine? And does it not raise the question of how effective – or not – these CSR gestures are? And more than that whether the whole notion of CSR and philanthropy needs serious rethinking now.
Here’s the worry: CSR gestures like this not only feel cynical, but even if genuinely intended they can get in the way of real, fundamental attempts to deliver positive impact as part of the operating model. Whilst CSR remains a side activity it will forever remain – erm – on the side and often sidelined. A diversion, not part of the core.
And am I the only person who feels discomforted by the abundance of visible, branded, philanthropy? Everywhere I went in India I came across signs saying that such and such building or institution existed because of the donations of various great and good. Every park, almost every fence, every gate, every school was there because of the largesse of a rich and powerful benefactor. And their continued existence depended on the continuing benevolence of those rich and powerful benefactors. These donations are not fostering self sufficiency.
And the heavy attribution feels more than a little self interested. It’s not just corporate donors – this feeling of self interest accompanies a huge amount of NGO and charity work too.
I came across a school funded by a famous philanthropic foundation whose sole contribution was cash – they couldn’t have been less involved (or less interested) in what the school actually did. More disturbingly a rehabilitation centre was being supported by a – really very famous indeed – NGO because “it fits with our global agenda”. Not then because we can provide help and support – but because the suffering of these (deprived and abused) people lends gravity to our lobbying and campaigning work. The relationship was financial one way, and reputational the other. Really not very helpful at all – and very self interested on behalf of the NGO. Worst of all – the presence of this NGO acted as a deterrent to other, better intentioned, players who actually could have provided some on the ground help.
Is simply giving money enough? Or does donation actually abrogate responsibility? Is money all that is required to create impact? Self evidently not.
Investment on its own doesn’t create impact. As impact investment funds like Blue Orchard or Acumen are finding. This is an exciting and growing new sector which has the potential to create many new and good businesses in the world. But what it needs to do is to think carefully about what else it needs beyond investment in order to create impact. How do they incubate new businesses that can price and structure what they do for the maximum impact – whether it’s water, healthcare, food or whatever else is required?
Where does all this take us? Perhaps to a new understanding and practice of how brands should behave in the area of impact beyond self interest – and by this I mean all brands, not just charities, NGOs and incubators. Someone needs to work it out – watch this space.
(Nick Keppel-Palmer)
