Category: Philanthropy

In his article titled The New Elite’s Phoney Crusade to Save the World Without Changing Anything Giridharadas argues it is becoming increasingly obvious that particularly within America, the capitalist system – otherwise the ‘service machine’ of human progress – is broken, with rising levels of global inequality and the exceedingly disproportionate distribution of global wealth increasingly recognised as symptomatic of a rigged system, designed to elevate and restore the wealth of already rich at the expense of others (Harvey, 2007, p. 19) (Dumenil & Levy, 2004). Often the same factors creating billionaires and the extravagantly wealthy are the very ones exacerbating social injustices and inequality (Ramadas, 2011) and true to form, 2018 saw the record number of global billionaires reach 2,208, who, in the same year, grew 12% wealthier as the bottom half of the global population grew 11% poorer [footnoteRef:1]. Many would thus argue the obligation for the super elites to philanthropically lead the charge of social reformation is greater than ever before, calling upon those ‘’awash in money they don’t know what to do with’’ (Bishop, 2013, p. 474) to embrace ‘’the creed of doing well by doing good’’ (Bishop, 2013, p. 477) – to deploy private means and successful market logic in an attempted bid to solve critical social issues manifesting as a result of deep structural global problems. However, Giridhas, amongst many others, are far more critical of such temporary ‘’repair services’’ and democratic ‘’work arounds’’ (Giridharadas, 2019) proffered by those profiting substantially from the modus operandi of the current system; proposing that big philanthropy is an instrumental mechanism of contemporary capitalism which serves to obfuscate the root causes of social inequalities while simultaneously cleansing the reputations of the super affluent as physical symbols of social inequality and allowing them to be recast as the ‘saviours’ of society (Giridharadas, 2019). This highlights the role that philanthrocapitalism plays in contributing to rising public mistrust in government, further contributing to undermining current democratic systems and institutions, while simultaneously revealing that often the great inequalities caused within society are ‘’caused by the nature of our economic system, and the inability of politics to change it’’ (Edwards, 2008, p. 25) [1: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-richest-people-own-as-much-as-poorest-50-per-cent-oxfam-report?CMP=share_btn_tw).]

Deriving from the Greek philos (loving), and anthropos (human), philanthropy is traditionally defined as ‘’love for human-kind’’ (Edwards, 2008); as a manifestation of altruistic concern taking the shape of various private ventures, initiatives and individual actions focused upon the betterment of public good. While there is no doubt that such sentiment still rings true in some practices of modern-day philanthropists, big philanthropy has become an integral ideological aspect of a new immaterial, creative capitalism; intricately intertwined with and directly related to growing levels of extreme global inequality (Thorup, 2013). Recently, global inequality has been on the rise, aided in part by the new ‘creative’ capitalism offering enormous opportunities to a few, while the increasing majority of the population face diminishing prospects (Thorup, 2013). Such effects are felt strongly in America, where those at the bottom the income ladder currently hold a 35% chance of realising the American Dream, and elevating above their own parents’ social status, in comparison to those raised at the top of the ladder having double the chance (Giridharadas, 2019). Despite the American healthcare system paving the way in international medical reach and innovative development, this has failed to translate into equality of public health. With the average health of the individual American declining, rich American men can now expect to live up to two years longer than poor Americans – who have the same life expectancy as men from Sudan and Pakistan (Pavia, 2016). Furthermore, the same disparities are evident in quality of education, with 17% of American school leavers being categorised as ‘’functionally illiterate’’ (TeachingTimes , 2010). With the super-rich most at risk of attracting public dislike and resentment and facing more scrutiny in a period of great inequality, billionaires around the world are reacting by doing the honourable thing; they have been ‘’owning up to the problem’’ (Giridhas, 2019), resolving to funnel vast amounts of both their time and money in their commitment to instituting positive progressive social change – specifically promising to target issues of health and education through the application of philanthrocapitalist approach. In the vein of an optimistic philanthrocapitalism, promoted vigorously by Bishop (2013), the super-rich are recast into the roles ‘hyperagents’ which endows them with the ability of ‘’publishing their vison of what makes a good society’’ (Bishop, 2013 p. 483) without being subject to the restrictions and scrutiny faced by conventional loci of social change. Unburdened with the responsibilities of CEOs to shareholder values and free from the obligations of investing significant amounts of time in order to procure funds like most leaders of NGOs, it is true that there lies substantial benefits in philanthrocapitalism rapidly enabling the deployment of resources where they are most needed, when the situation requires it. Yet perhaps it is not such a good thing as Bishop and Green argue, that philanthrocapitalists ‘’do not have to face elections… like politicians do’’ (Bishop & Green, 2008, p. 12)and remain free – without the accountability or responsibility inherent in the socially powerful position of a politician and with tremendous amounts of both wealth and power at ready disposal – to influence social policies as they see fit; be it either in the spirit of true traditional philanthropy stemming from a love of humankind, or in accordance with ulterior individual, political and economic agendas. In the same way that we could expect a fox to guard hens (Giridhas 2019), can we really expect the few who profit from the system to encourage reform that suits the many, relying upon their charitable good will to do so?

Philanthrocapitalism has therefore evolved as a mechanism of contemporary capitalism which acts to justify the extreme disparities of global wealth distribution, alongside playing a major role in the perpetuation of social injustices and inequality while painting the elite classes as continually partaking in the conquest to ‘save the world’. Furthermore, inevitably the attempts of the super elite at making real improvements naturally reflect ‘’an unjust status quo – and the tools and mentalities and values that helped them win’’ (Giridhas 2019). This is strongly reflected in the demographic of affluent social groups, consisting majorly of white males with a spattering of some white women (Locker, 2018), it is perhaps of no surprise that little has been achieved in philanthropic efforts to tackle the prevalence of racism within the contemporary system, with a recent study discovering that only 8.8% of American grant money manages to find its way to communities of colour (Cohen, 2014). While the efforts of philanthrocapitalists are often genuine charitable expressions, in an age defined by an increasing rift between those with power and those without it, elites have effectively disseminated the idea that people may only be helped first and foremost through the deployment of market-friendly mechanisms which ultimately act to maintain and uphold fundamentally unequal power relations which perpetuate inequality. Thus, not only are efforts of the super elite in implementing positive social change are often misdirected, inadequate, and riddled with biases (Giridhas 2019); they fail from the outset in their attempts of addressing the significance and attacking the root causes of the most pressing global issues which demand sustainable and comprehensive economic and political solutions grounded in effective reform as opposed to temporary ‘quick-fixes’ which serve to obfuscate the true origins of inequality.

With contemporary philanthropy narrated by a rhetoric which glorifies the injection of a laser business-like focus in the belief that ‘’market methods will save the world – and make some of us a fortune along the way’’ (Edwards, 2008, p. 23), governments are increasingly willing to partake in philanthropic collaborations, to partner-up with these ‘private sector problem solvers’, whose actions are based upon the rational conclusion that they are effective tools in the fight against inequality, rather than acting upon a ‘’simplistic faith in capitalist ideology’’ (Bishop, 2013, p. 477). However, the faith of the super elite in a system which has served them so well can hardly be termed as ‘simplistic’ and the ‘‘pragmatic belief’’ (Bishop, 2013, p. 477) in the self-professed usefulness of philanthrocapitalists in aiding forms of conventional governance through unconventional means can less likely be relied upon as a driver and influence of stable, positive social progress. How can we truly expect not only the public but also fundamental democratic institutions to blindly rely upon those who live lives of extraordinary extravagance, completely at odds with the lived realities experienced by the majority of the population, to be in touch with critical social issues facing everyone but them? To echo Diane Ravitch, there seems to be something fundamentally wrong, something profoundly undemocratic about passively allowing the wealthiest of society to influence and preside over societal developments without much collective social consensus or input (Ravitch, 2010). Therefore, perhaps one of the greatest flaws characterising contemporary philanthrocapitalism lies within misguided faith that it places in translating the accomplishments of the triumphant successors of the capitalist system into a from of qualification that unreasonably certifies the super elite as perfectly capable of positively reforming the deeply troubled and unequal governing political and economic systems that the foundations of society rest upon. Yet while market advancements in the forms of medical developments and technological innovations are certainly vital to in the quest to end inequality, they can only hope to contribute somewhat superficially to efforts combatting systemic insecurities perpetuated by the often violently dysfunctional relations between varying social and increasingly political groups. Thus, despite many admirable intentions, it would appear that the current version of philanthropy is ill-fitted when it comes to tacking some of the world’s most deeply rooted issues of inequality (Ramadas, 2011), which can often be located in the incapability of politics to influence and address the inequalities pervading the economic system.

Bill Clinton maintains that the single solution to furthering the quest towards social prosperity and stability is the formation of ‘’an aggressive, creative partnership involving all levels of government, the private sector and nongovernment organisation to make it better’’ (Giridharadas, 2019). This view of approaching social change lies far out with traditional means; and would effectively throw collective consensus out the window, ‘’with the political representatives of humankind as one input among several, and corporations having the big say’’ (Giridharadas, 2019) in allocating the support of any given proposal. The pure and simple minded pursual of profit is a chase that has characterised triumphant society and is one that is systemically designed to favour the already wealthy. Rather than single-mindedly focusing upon developing and adding to the influences of business upon civil society, philanthrocapitalism should instead turn its attentions to the influences of civil society upon all things business. ‘’Far too deeply embedded in the current economic and political status quo of global capitalism’’ (Ramadas, 2011, p. 393), philanthrocapitalism should instead occupy itself with looking to stimulate social co-operation rather than competition, and should be seeking to move away from practices promoting individualisation as the surest step forward social reform toward collective action. In short, while philanthrocapitalism is fighting to secure the safety and legitimation of the current broken system in an age of increasing inequality, it should contrastingly fight to validate the incorporation of legitimate social needs of civil society, redirecting both political and economic resources rather than busing itself with the detrimental, roundabout chase of democratic short-cuts effective only as temporary, ‘fix-it-quick’ remedies for a strongly insidious sickness of pervasive social inequality. Afterall, what hangs in the balance is only democratic purpose (Giridharadas, 2019), and what it all boils down to in the end is whether we are willing to literally hand over such democratic purpose to extremely wealthy individual hyperagents, bandying about their significant political and economic influence, claiming to closely observe the best social interests of the public system that they claim to observe, while simultaneously also likely to prioritise the protection of their own hides, their own beliefs and their own amassed fortunes before protecting the many from the system.

Bibliography

1. Bishop, M., 2013. Philanthrocapitalism: solving public problems through private means. Social Research, 80(2), pp. 473-490.
2. Bishop, M. & Green, M., 2008. Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich can Save the World. London: Bloomsbury Press.
3. Cohen, R., 2014. Racial Equity. [Online] Available at: http://racialequity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/CIF5Data-Snapshot-.pdf [Accessed 07 01 2020].
4. Dumenil, G. & Levy, D., 2004. Capital Resurgent: Roots of the Neoliberal Revolution. Cambridge: Haravard University Press.
5. Edwards, M., 2008. Philanthrocapitalism and its Limtis. International Jounal of Not-for-Profit Law, Volume 22.
6. Giridharadas, A., 2019. The New Elite’s Phoney Crusade to Save the World Without Changing Anything. [Online]
7. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/22/the-new-elites-phoney-crusade-to-save-the-world-without-changing-anything [Accessed 07 01 2020].
8. Harvey, D., 2007. Freedom’s Just Another Word. In: A Brief HIstory of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, pp. 5-38.
9. Locker, M., 2018. Forbes. [Online] Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/40540119/forbes-list-of-billionaires-is-mostly-old-white-males
10. Pavia, W., 2016. The Times. [Online] Available at: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/poor-americans-have-same-life-expectancy-as-sudanese-wpgjm8k33
11. Ramadas, K., 2011. Philanthrocapitalism: Reflections on Politics and Policy Making. Society, Volume 48, pp. 393-396.
12. Ravitch, D., 2010. The Billionaire Boy’s Club. In: The Dealth and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education. New York: Basic Books , p. 266.
13. TeachingTimes , 2010. 17% of School Leavers ‘Functionally Illiterate’. [Online] Available at: https://www.teachingtimes.com/articles/school-leavers-functionally-illiterate.htm
14. Thorup, M., 2013. Pro Bono? On Philanthrocapitalism as Ideological Answer to Inequality. Ephemera: Theory and Politcs in Organisation, 13(3), pp. 555-576.

The world is at a pivotal moment for global development cooperation. While many stakeholders are brought increasingly into international development processes, philanthropy stands apart, despite the scale, ambition and potential of philanthropy’s contributions to international development. Its resources are growing as a proportion of total Official Development Assistance (ODA), and in 2011 philanthropic North-South flows from OECD DAC donors alone was at least US$59 billion. But philanthropy should not be viewed principally as “gap filler” for ODA. Instead, and crucially, philanthropy brings a complementary and beneficial set of new actors, approaches, and types of funding (Cannon, 2018).

Most philanthropy is directed to supporting individual and collective human initiative and ingenuity, an expression of belief that the answers to societies’ toughest challenges lie not in one institution or set of actors, but in the vast array of individuals and institutions who make up those societies, who represent different beliefs and perspectives, and approach the same problems with different solutions. The value of a philanthropic portfolio is that it enables one institution, even with modest resources, to simultaneously, and over time, test and support disparate organizations and interventions. And given the growing importance and enthusiasm around South-South cooperation and linkages, the burgeoning philanthropy originating in the Global South, which has not been well-documented, is particularly important to explore and analyze (Kihato, 2011).

Philanthropy is increasingly seen as an alternative source of global development finance, and one of the solutions to the steadily decreasing role of Official Development Aid (ODA). Philanthropy studies and research on social entrepreneurship are developing, and more work is being done to understand their impact. Aside private foreign direct investment, “innovative finance”, and diasporas’ remittances, the philanthropy sector – in its diversity – seeks to play a more significant role in Africa’s development. In that sense, the first reason why philanthropy is worth being seriously considered by all those interested in developing countries is that it is a substantial provider of development finance. The second reason why we should try to better understand philanthropy is that “Grant makers also give money” (Moyo, 2014).

According to the online Oxford dictionary referring to a definition dating back from the seventeenth century, everyone is a philanthropist in his or her own right, since philanthropy is “the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.” This definition is not only very broad, but leads to a number of questions to be constantly addressed by those practicing or studying philanthropy. Indeed, such notions as “desire”, “welfare”, “generosity”, “donation”, “money” and “good causes” may spread confusion, if not controversy, about the ways they are interpreted (Setkova, 2014).

Other definitions from the last century reflect a rather high degree of professionalization in philanthropy: in the 1960s American experts used the following criteria for identifying philanthropic foundations: “nongovernmental, nonprofit, possessing a principal fund of their own, managed by their own trustees and directors, promote social, educational, charitable, religious or other activities serving the common welfare”. Although Weaver’s 1967 definition is clearer, the question of what “common welfare” is remains unanswered. It has recently been replaced in latest American publications by the idea of “social purpose”, “social justice”, or “wellbeing” but also “social investment” (Viederman, 2012).

Its etymology describes the motive and ambition to aid and to improve the progress and quality of living of others. In practice, philanthropy builds public good, by granting money to numerous causes and by supporting the less fortunate and unprivileged people. Promulgating philanthropy is a socially desirable initiative. From a utilitarian point of view, there are citizens gratified with getting funds for free. The vital query is the reason for which wealthy individuals would experience the “love for humanity” and reward less capable people. Such eagerness to concede the profits of one’s performance derives from society’s propaganda convictions to do so.

Taking as an example American government, when US politicians are elected, they pursue to act in the sympathies of the majority of voters. Given high costs related to the election process, the same leaders have to appeal also to the rich voters to receive financial contributions for their politicking. The politicians must find a precise balance between the rich (who donate the money) and the poor (the majority of who give votes). (Bertrand M., 2018) Manipulation and propaganda are the sole viable means to carry out this aim.

This essay will disclose interconnectedness among societal convictions and philanthropy, a politico-social mean that shapes power through mass manipulation.

From the British documentary entitled “The Century of the Self” of Adam Curtis, one understands about Sigmund Freud, and his nephew Edward Bernays, who revealed how mankind can be manipulated. Freud argued humans have subconscious minds, which hid various impulses and appetites inherited from their animal past (Academy of Ideas, 2017). Thus, by addressing to hidden irrational forces, it is imaginable to manoeuvre people. Bernays further considered that propaganda was unfair only when it spread lies or when it was used for nefarious ends: “if you could use propaganda for war, you could use it for peace”(Freedom in Thought, 2017).

For instance, reporting the potential benefactors that their donations make the State stronger, and better, is a process to appeal to primordial drive for power and dominance. In this way, well-off individuals give up wealth and feel as important and as involved in their country’s prosperity as politicians. Politics made the act of philanthropy a norm, dividing the country between those who have resources to share and those who do not have them. The wealthy figures set the model of patriotism and pour influence from the elite of the hierarchy down on other citizens. They compel the rest of society to “fit in”: to be sincere patriots, people need likewise to respond, volunteering for charitable purposes or serving in the army.

Philanthropy manipulates humans by setting the “norm” that represents what true citizens are presumed to do and what behaviours are normal, honourable and worthy of praise. When such norms are established, it becomes difficult for an average person to confront the status quo without looking unpatriotic or revolutionary.

For instance, claiming that America is waging war in oil-rich regions for reserves would be offensive for Americans who consider that America fights for democracy. This is the case, when billionaire philanthropists and mass media owners, recognise the US foreign policy to act solely for freedom rights. ( Lynn-Jones, Sean M., 2019)

Once philanthropy is set as the criterion of sharing or giving, it involves people to offer up even their viewpoints to fit in. Most times, people are expected to change their assumptions on sensitive matters, when philanthropists think otherwise. Philanthropy thus expresses the power philanthropists have to dictate what is proper and right. Since they previously demonstrated their virtue, commitment, patriotism and character with their giving, their voices are counted as more meaningful, unlike the view of an average citizen.

Manipulation takes place at a cultural level too. Just as Christian beliefs, philanthropy manipulates people with delicate issues such as altruism, and self-worth and trains them to obey and praise the monied men. Just as Jesus gave up his life to preserve humanity, so do philanthropists with their resources to solve societal problems that “sinners” who cannot deal with on their own.

Thus, just like Christians are expected to feel gratitude to Jesus and follow the canons of Christianity, so do non-philanthropists are supposed to respect the rich and powerful people and consider them as examples of nationalism and goodness. In this way, the politicians overthrow the wealthy 1% of the population that leverage to bend policy in their favoured direction.

Overall, philanthropy improves people’s perception of the world, it appeals to primordial desires for control, superiority and dominance, sets the standard of patriotism and goodness, calls for reciprocity and obedience. But philanthropy is not a simple by-product of resources’ inequality. It is a reflection of an economic reality that favours the 1% of the population, taking private profit and converting it into public power. It is the result of a plutocratic bias baked into public policies that structure how philanthropy operates itself.

The term Philanthropy means doing some or volunteering a charity work and strategic philanthropy refers to the organization which practices the charitable activities which are related to their business or a specific issue.

Summary

In the last decennia, the discussion around firms undertaking philanthropy has moved all the more overwhelmingly towards strategically motivated giving, where beside the advantages gave to society, the advantages of philanthropy to the firm are similarly considered. This way to deal with philanthropy is known as strategic philanthropy. Strategic philanthropy has double targets: profiting social welfare and financial related profit.

The target of financial profitability is accomplished through the indirect impacts of philanthropy exercises, for example, expanded trust, dependability and philanthropy. Be that as it may, these double targets stand up to firms with an alignment issue. As per Jensen, it is ”consistently difficult to boost in more than one measurement simultaneously except if the measurements are monotone changes of each other”. From this perspective, social welfare assistance and benefit can’t be augmented all the while as they are compelled by an indisputable exchange.

Discussion

Studies focused on corporate philanthropy or strategic philanthropy in specific are significantly less. Until this point, researchers have broke down the drivers that can foresee firms expenditure on philanthropy, the degree to which firms are vital in their giving conduct, the difficulties related to the globalization of Philanthropy and the impact of philanthropy giving on financial performance. As every administration choice depends on the accessible data about the particular subject being considered, the management choices concerning philanthropic activities should be founded on important data with the end goal for them to be considered key in any capacity.

This important data originates from the appraisal of the effect over different applicable measurements. Notwithstanding, for the estimation of effect on society, a comparable arrangement of bookkeeping standards and lawful structures to take into consideration practically identical measures don’t yet exist. In any case, there are various activities that add to the future development of such standards and structures, for example, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Impact Reporting and Contributing Standards (IRIS) created by the Global Effect Investment Network (GIIN). Since the effect of exercises on society, as characterized by the social worth or social change made, is regularly not joined by direct market esteem, it is confused or possibly difficult to definitively catch this contact with ordinary bookkeeping techniques. Be that as it may, advocates and designers of effect estimation techniques discovered inventive approaches to make accounts that go past the monetary. An case of such an imaginative strategy is Social Return on Investment investigation, as it endeavors to adapt the effect on society to defeat the trouble between customary bookkeeping strategies and made worth that comes up short on a market esteem. As Carrigan appeared, numerous organizations express that the essential recipient of any corporate philanthropy activity is society.

In any case, 75% of the organizations in her test didn’t screen the effect on society of their philanthropic work. Estimating the sway on society is basic for inner choice making just as outside giving an account of generous exercises to different partners. It is likely that because of institutional and partner pressures, the interest for increasingly itemized provides details regarding the effect on society of corporate philanthropy exercises will increment. All the more explicitly, estimating sway and unveiling sway data can be utilized for the reasons for authenticity, stake holder management and internal decision making.

Abstract

Despite the numerous amount of study done on the impacts of corporate philanthropy and corporate social responsibility from a business’s perspective, not enough attention is being paid on the community’s perspective. Corporate philanthropy could potentially result in intentional and/or unintentional negative consequences for the target beneficiaries. This paper will first define corporate philanthropy before highlighting three possible ways of firms harming the community – threatening their livelihoods, destabilizing communities through corruption and fraud, and overly focused on programs with measurable impact.

Introduction

There is a wide body of literature that underlines the value of corporate social responsibility (CSR), and corporate philanthropy (CP), for businesses. Very few focused on the impacts of these activities on the communities they aim to help. As a result, more firms may be investing in CSR with the assumption that their target community will benefit from their actions. This paper will attempt to shed some light on how CSR, specifically CP, can be harmful to the communities they are trying to help. But in order to do that, one fundamental question needs to be answered – what exactly does CP entail? Unfortunately, there is no one uniformly agreed on explanation to this question – many authors offer different descriptions of CP and some even leave the term undefined. There is also a debate on the link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and CP. Can CP be considered CSR and vice versa? And what does CSR mean? To determine the scope of this paper, I will first establish the definition of CP by looking at whether or not CP is a part of CSR. This will be done by analyzing a well-known definition of CSR. [1: Sharon McLennan & Glenn Banks, “Reversing the lens: Why corporate social responsibility is not community development” (2017), Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2019;26: pg. 117–126] [2: Arthur Gautier & Anne-Claire Pache, “Research on Corporate Philanthropy: A Review and Assessment” (2013), J Bus Ethics (2015) 126: pg. 343-369]

Defining CSR and CP

Despite the growing popularity and importance of CSR worldwide, there has yet to be a universally accepted definition of CSR due to the ambiguity of the moral foundation and lack of consensus on how various aspects of CSR should be balanced for decision-making. A quick Google search would show a myriad of definitions of CSR from various perspectives and sources. Thus, this paper will use one of the more popular definitions which was contributed by Archie Carroll, where he defined CSR to be a four-part pyramid that frames a business’s responsibilities to the community it is a part of. The following is a summary of the pyramid (starting from the bottom of the pyramid) [3: Richard Smith, “Defining Corporate Social Responsibility: A Systems Approach For Socially Responsible Capitalism” (2011), online: https://repository.upenn.edu/od_theses_mp/9] [4: Archie Carroll, “Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR: Taking Another Look”, International J of Corporate Soc Responsibility 1, 3 (2016), online: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0004-6 ] [5: Archie Carroll, “The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders”, Business Horizons July-August (1991): pg. 39-48 ]

• Economic responsibilities – businesses are required to be profitable and able to sustain themselves in order to provide the goods and services society needs.
• Legal responsibilities – businesses are required to comply with the law and regulations that reflect society’s set of norms and fundamental notions.
• Ethical responsibilities – beyond legal compliance, businesses are also expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the ethical norms adopted by their stakeholders.
• Philanthropic responsibilities – businesses are desired to be good corporate citizens and give back to society, but it is usually up to the businesses’ discretion.

Distinctions between the four responsibilities, especially between legal & ethical requirements and ethical & philanthropic expectations, can be very tricky as the law is usually based on ethical premises, and actions fulfilling ethical responsibilities may be considered as a form of giving or philanthropy. Additionally, economic responsibilities have an underlying ethical principle of utilitarianism as to be profitable, businesses must take actions that produce the greater good for the greater number. Hence, these responsibilities tend to overlap. However, it must be noted that the pyramid is intended to be seen as a whole rather than focused on each part separately. Businesses should make CSR decisions that fulfill the four responsibilities simultaneously, rather than in some sequential manner. Therefore, whether or not the responsibilities overlap does not matter as firms have to carry out all four anyway. [6: OpenStax, “Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number”, Business Ethics 2.4 (2018), online: https://openstax.org/details/books/business-ethics] [7: Archie Carroll, “Carroll’s Pyramid of CSR: Taking Another Look”, International J of Corporate Soc Responsibility 1, 3 (2016), online: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0004-6]

Based on Carroll’s definition of CSR, it can be concluded that CP is a part of CSR (correspondingly, CP by itself cannot be considered CSR and could stand on its own). On this basis, CP can then be defined to be all forms of business giving – be it cash and product donations, employee volunteerism, and any other contribution – that enhance a community’s quality of life. Companies usually conduct CP by giving to charitable organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or by setting up their own foundations and CSR departments. [8: Erin Cho et. al, “Corporate Philanthropy Affecting Consumer Patronage Behavior: The Effect of Reciprocity and the Moderating Roles of Vicarious Licensing and Strategic Fit” Sustainability 2017, 9(7), online: https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071094 ] [9: Arthur Gautier & Anne-Claire Pache, “Research on Corporate Philanthropy: A Review and Assessment” (2013), J Bus Ethics (2015) 126: pg. 343-369]

Ways CP Can Harm Communities

Corporate gifts may harm the community they are supposed to assist in various ways, whether intentionally or unintentionally: Directly Threatening the Community’s Livelihoods

When companies donate resources to a community without verifying the actual need (or with the intention of weeding out local competitors), it may create a situation of oversupply and unfair competition which may result in local businesses losing sales and profit. One example to illustrate the grave impact of oversupply is the death of many African countries’ textile industry in the 1980s by the hands of foreign second-hand clothes donation which greatly contribute to massive layoffs and unemployment. Some argued that the second-hand clothes have become an industry of itself and provided jobs for many Africans, but there are no reliable statistics to prove that the claim is true or if the job creation had a net positive impact on the community as a whole. Another example is the devastating Haiti earthquake in 2010 which displaced over 1.5 million people to relief camps. Many companies, along with NGOs, donated overseas solar panels to alleviate the energy shortage. As a result, a local solar panel manufacturer had his business severely disrupted, which led to a loss of income for the 62 Haitian employees in his company. After all, it is difficult to compete with free donations. It is worth mentioning that this case is unique as there was an urgent need for power in Haiti, so companies and NGOs may not have the time to conduct thorough market research. Still, if companies are sincere in helping communities in such situations, they should at least consult the local authorities first on how best to help. [10: Andrew Brooks, “Clothing Poverty: The Hidden World of Fast Fashion and Second-hand Clothes” (2015), online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281463089 ] [11: CNN Editorial Research, “Haiti Earthquake Fast Facts” (2010), online: https://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/12/world/haiti-earthquake-fast-facts/index.html] [12: Marianne Lavelle, “Solar Power Brings Light to Quake-Darkened Haiti” (2010), online: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/3/100331-solar-light-haiti/] [13: “Poverty, Inc.”, directed by Michael Matheson Miller (5 December 2014), online: https://www.povertyinc.org/ ]

Destabilizing Communities Through Corruption and Fraud

Even though philanthropy is usually done out of goodwill, it can breed malfeasance and fraud instead. It is unfortunately not uncommon for people to make false claims or pose as intended beneficiaries, which diverts resources away from those who need them. One such case is the loss of around £775,000 of funds intended for Grenfell Tower fire victims in London to fraudulent claims. Corporate contributions can also be misappropriated or siphoned off by the authorities who are supposed to distribute them to the community. This is especially true if there are many intermediaries between donors and beneficiaries. For example, in Afghanistan, it was found that community development contracts given to large contractors are subcontracted to smaller and local ones, and by the time the money reached the local contractor and corrupt officials were paid off, there were not enough to build a road. Not only do the community fail to benefit from the donations, but they are also likely to be hurt by the very resources that are supposed to help them. Donations may be repacked and sold to the public, distorting prices and purchase ability. Corruption can also increase violence and crime which destabilize communities and cause them to feel vulnerable and insecure, fueling insurgency and further instability. One can say that the fault mainly lies in the corrupt individuals and not the companies. But at the same time, the companies play a part in enabling corruption and fraud by not exercising due diligence on the supply chain of their philanthropic actions. Understandably, corruption and fraud can be difficult to track and avoid, but corporations can still take steps to minimize it by seeking NGOs with credible anti-corruption mechanisms or establishing their own systems. [14: The Economist, “Defrauding the do-gooders”, The Economist International (23 November 2017), online: https://www.economist.com/international/2017/11/23/much-of-the-money-donated-after-disasters-is-stolen ] [15: Phoebe Southworth, “Grenfell fraudsters stole £775,000 from victims’ fund with bogus claims, new figures reveal”, The Telegraph (22 October 2019), online: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/22/grenfell-fraudsters-stole775000-victims-fund-bogus-claims-new/] [16: Michael Moody, “A Hippocratic Oath for Philanthropists”, For the Greater Good of All: Perspectives on Individualism, Society, and Leadership 8: pg. 142-166] [17: SIGAR, “Corruption in Conflict: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in Afghanistan” (September 2016), online: https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/lessonslearned/SIGAR-16-58-LL.pdf] [18: Transparency International, “Conflict at the Bottom” (29 January 2019), online: https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/conflict_at_the_bottom] [19: Mario A. Aguilar et. al, “Preventing Fraud and Corruption in World Bank Projects” (May 2000), The World Bank, online: http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/anticorrupt/fraudguide.pdf]

Overly Focused on Programs with Measurable Impacts

“Impact measurement” is the newest buzz phrase among CP and CSR communities. Both corporate and individual donors are paying more attention to the impact of their giving, which is both good and bad. Impact measurements can result in good philanthropic programs receiving more funding and increasing the number of beneficiaries. However, it can also cause a bottleneck effect where only programs with proven effectiveness are funded while those with unmeasured success are disregarded. Poor impact measurement methods can also give misleading outcomes. Firms may end up creating or donating to programs that produce quick results and/or do not necessarily tackle the root issue. A 2010 study on Fortune 500 CP on education shows that most contributions made are one-off or lasted for less than three years as they would like to see progress and results before renewing their commitment. What those companies fail to realize is that education is a long-term investment – a single donation does not come close to solving the root cause of lack of education and its impact will thus be minimal at best. The short duration and inconsistency of funding and programs also make it difficult for NGOs and firms to create sustainable plans with real long-term impact. Although this may not harm the community per se, it might still deprive them of a better outcome should companies be less focused on quantifying the effects. Having said so, measuring impact is still beneficial for both parties if companies can collect the right data, develop the right system to analyze it, and improve the programs based on the learnings. They should also gain a deeper understanding of the social issue they are trying to solve before jumping on the impact measurement bandwagon. [20: Mary Key Gugerty & Dean Karlan, “Ten Reasons Not to Measure Impact—and What to Do Instead” (2018), Stanford Social Innovation Review, online: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/ten_reasons_not_to_measure_impact_and_what_to_do_instead#] [21: Hyunsoo Kim et. al, “The Ethical Issue of Contemporary Philanthropy: Unintended Negative Consequences of Philanthropy”, Management Review: An International Journal (2017) Volume 12 Number 1 ] [22: Justin van Fleet, “A Global Education Challenge: Harnessing Corporate Philanthropy to Educate the World’s Poor”, Center for Universal Education Brookings Working Paper 4 (April 2011), online: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/04_corporate_philanthropy_fleet.pdf] [23: Mary Key Gugerty & Dean Karlan, “Ten Reasons Not to Measure Impact—and What to Do Instead” (2018), Stanford Social Innovation Review, online: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/ten_reasons_not_to_measure_impact_and_what_to_do_instead#]

Conclusion

The above list is certainly not exhaustive. There are other ways of how CP can potentially cause harm, such as creating dependency on corporate handouts, that warrant further study. The causes and implications of the harm need to be properly investigated with data to test its significance and severity. [24: https://johnsoncenter.org/giving-back-blog-types-of-philanthropic-harm/]

In a nutshell, before making philanthropic decisions, companies should weigh the positive and negative impacts of their philanthropic actions carefully from the community’s perspectives and not just theirs. An additional suggestion is to apply ethical reasoning to their decision-making process. For example, based on the utilitarian view, are they willing to exploit someone for the sake of the majority? Or based on the Kantian view, will they accept negative results as long as their philanthropic actions were done in goodwill? [25: Hyunsoo Kim et. al, “The Ethical Issue of Contemporary Philanthropy: Unintended Negative Consequences of Philanthropy”, Management Review: An International Journal (2017) Volume 12 Number 1]

Should firms choose to proceed with CP, they should bear in mind the various pitfalls illustrated above (as well as others not mentioned) and take precautionary measures. It would bode well for companies to do thorough research on the community they intend to help, such as delving into the community’s environment, social issues, and local regulatory bodies (including their legal system). If they intend to partner with NGOs or local businesses in the community, it will not hurt to look into their profiles as well, especially with regards to anti-corruption and fraud measures. Firms also need to remember that philanthropy takes time, commitment and patience for the community to reap its benefits.

Modern definitions of philanthropy

According to Johnson (2016), philanthropy is defined as the “love of mankind; good nature”. It is the thing done for a good cause with a good heart to help someone. “One old-fashioned view of philanthropy holds that it should simply alleviate individual suffering and do nothing more” (Schmitt, 2015). In olden times, People used to Volunteer for social work without any selfish or personal motives. People use to come along for fighting against the social problems. They used to go to the root cause of the issue and find a lifelong solution. The modern definition of Philanthropy is “Voluntary action for public good” (Payton & Moody, 2016). In contemporary world, it is also called as Charity done for benefitting the needy. Now a day’s, associations are initiating voluntary work programs where they provide a helping hand to the people.

Philanthropy has a wide platform where people from different cultures and religion come together. The social, political, economic, religious, moral and scientific affairs are different categories that people work on for society’s betterment (Payton & Moody, 2016). It is impacting individual’s life and societies with great outcomes.

The key similarities of Philanthropy between modern and olden times is that people still voluntarily work towards the improvement of the system that shows the love and affection towards the society. In golden era people used to donate things that are the necessities like clothes and food. New generation believe in making the world more educated and thus people donate more on education. Donation towards the religious belief has not changed to a greater extent. Leaders having past experiences in voluntary work tends to be great mentors. How do human respond in situations when things go wrong and things can be better are the reason for the existence of Philanthropy (Payton & Moody, 2016).

The differences in past and present Philanthropy is that money has a remarkable impact. Philanthropy has changed to a monetary business in the new era. People nowadays do not want to struggle or take efforts to work for challenges. People support the cause by providing funding. It is also a marketing strategy for fame. In olden times, the process to get to the conclusions were time consuming but the results were long-lasting.

For example, Charity vs. Philanthropy: How Are They Different? (Anonymous,2018) article helps us to understand the major difference in the new and old definition of Philanthropy. There was a disaster relief event and how people react to it. The modern people go for the charity option where they donate money for helping the people on the donation drive pages. The real philanthropists they go by the old definition where they study the whole situation from alertness to prevention and work in a process to save people. The motive was the same in both the case they want to help people and show love but the way to show differs by each individual.

The elements of Philanthropy have changed a lot from the ancient to the modern time. People use to be more emotional during situations whereas in today’s world people try to be more pragmatic when it comes to making decisions, but the great thing is people still care about each other and want to change and improve the society creating it a better place. Helping people have a great impact on our individuals’ life as well as a great impact on the world around you (Payton & Moody, 2016).

How wealth and elitism impacts philanthropy

Answer: “Philanthropy by the wealthy refers to the involvement of wealthy individuals in charitable activities, including donating, participating in volunteer activities, and establishing charitable organizations” (Deng, 2015). In today’s world, philanthropy is dependent on the funds that are raised by the charitable organizations and donations. Wealth plays a major part when it comes to executing the plan. “The moral biography of wealth refers to the way the individuals conscientiously combine in daily life two elements: personal capacity and moral compass” (Schervish,2016). Personal capacity refers to as own financial position and status. Moral compass is our own efforts needed to accomplish the goal.

Elite donors cover the population who are financially stable as well as well-educated people. They support the causes on basis of their financial status. It has a great impact when they donate the funds, but the question arises is that money used wisely for a change in the society? According to the facts and figures given by Luce (2018) states that, “Ken Griffin, the billionaire hedge fund manager, gave $150m to create scholarships in his name at Harvard University. Sandy Weill, the former chief executive of Citi, has given $250m to Cornell University for a medical school in his name. Harvard’s endowment is worth $39bn, which is more than most states spend on their schools”. The figures are in big numbers, but they are not used for making changes in the society instead they are used to get something for name and fame. This is not a positive sign in Philanthropy. Elite donors play a significant role when it comes to be a helping hand to people. Thus, they should understand the major issues that people are being facing and should take initiatives to make the people around them to be aware of the ongoing issues in the society. Wealthy people generally donate all of their amount or some of their amount to charity but that depends on individuals. Some people believe that donating and helping in their presence while some try donating money by preparing a will and give to some charitable trust. (pg. 202)

The major chunk of the donations now a days goes to government programs that provides free education to the students who cannot afford to study and religious foundations who help people grow in their own community. There are as well nonprofit organizations such as NGOs who requires funding. These donations help them fulfilling their basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter.

The factors that influences philanthropic giving activities are “personal values, what you hope to accomplish within the organization by giving this gift and What you expect for yourself or the future of your family” (How to Get Started in Philanthropic Activities | Long Island Advisors, 2013). The non-elite donors donate money but don’t have much power. Generally, they are emotionally bonded with their past experiences. I feel even a small amount of donation from all the members in the society can help make a big difference in someone’s life. As we know, small kids learn from environment in their home each family should understand and support the causes and ask the new generation to take it forward.

Philanthropy means try the best to help people but there can’t be any assurances for a perfect result. As suggested by Kent (2016), “To respect person is to respect their autonomy”. Respecting is a form of gesture that makes you feel valuable for the work you are doing for the society. Autonomy can be explained in different ways depending on rights, capacities and competencies (Martin, 2016). Each has its own meaning and stand out for themselves. Right autonomy means where people can make their own decisions on basis of their moral rights. Capacity autonomy is where people can justify themselves and make their decision taking into consideration different people. Competency autonomy is defined as working in such a way that we can reach the achievable goal.

I feel that’s the main reasons affecting Philanthropy is due to bad luck or poor judgement and excessive generosity or insufficient courage. We always try our best to get the results taking into consideration all the possibilities but there are still chances of Human error. The human emotions are too weak when it comes to make decision for their loved ones. The youth generation responses to situations be like “If something’s going to happen it’s going to happen regardless” (Price, 2017). The young generation have an attitude go with the flow. Bad luck is not in the hand of humans and thus they can’t be blamed.

Generosity values comes from your upbringing by the family. Some families are rich some are poor but still the values given to the children matters. “The greatest benefit of generosity is the realization we already have enough” (Beker, n.d.). It is good to donate when you are financially stable, but the ineffectiveness of philanthropy comes when the money donated is not benefitted to the actual cause. Having trust on someone is a good sign of generosity but that is not good in all cases. People should try taking initiating and being aware of the donated amount as transparency is important. By voluntarily disclosing all the information in the public helps us improving transparency (Nie et al., 2016). This technique can be used to motivate people to come forward and take initiative.

People must be willing to take risks. Sometime the past experiences have a negative impact and thus people are not ready to take risks. Big risks sometime can have a great result, but that can’t be true always. At the time of taking big decisions, the team should be working together to achieve the expected goal. Courage plays a significant role when you are taking decisions for big projects or investments. ‘We have to be a lot more courageous about leading with our language and leading with our words’ (Wallace, 2019). People are divided amongst their community which is a weakness to the country. The leaders should have the courage to explain people the difference between right and wrong in the community. People should be self-motivated and have a positive environment and should be courageous to know the difference between right and wrong and fight for the right decision.

How philanthropy can be improved

Answer: Philanthropy has a different definition when we talk about different professions. The modern era consists of people who are well educated with a designated position in their professional life and are still curious to work for peoples benefit. These people want to bring changes in the society with proper utilization of the funded grant. I really like the saying, “People don’t call me Philanthropists, I am trying to be useful” (Handy, 2016). This truly means you are a person who wants to do something beneficial to the society. “Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people” (Deng, 2015). The unreasonable people now a days are the young generation. They are smart and knowledgeable who are getting settled at an early stage in their life and thus believe working on the necessary changes. They are trying to focus on the new causes that are upcoming and work on the preventive measures.

Maintaining a gap between the decisions made by the body and the mind is a necessary event. As being humans, we get carried away in an emotional flow if something happens to our family or friends but when it comes to do for a society, we cannot make decisions being emotional. The decisions made by the people in today’s world are approaching practical scenarios and thus technocrats play a major role. The overall approach of philanthropy include that they are focused on the objective, the different steps we need to take to achieve the goal are the “role of value, grantmaking style, relationship with grantees, approach to evaluation and ability to teach and learn philanthropic techniques” (Connolly, 2016). This is the basic process that they take into consideration maintaining a balance between human emotion and the important assets taken into consideration.

Philanthropists in the modern era focuses more on the new practical and long-term approaches because new generation is taking their legacy forward in charitable giving. The new generation are supporting more recent causes that are not impossible to figure out but are time consuming for long lasting results. The new generation as well are getting rich enough to start their own organizations, so they don’t depend on others for their financial security (Breeze, 2016). They like to be more independent as well as achieve their goals having less hinderance.

Responsibilities, Decision making, Management and Educating are few of the techniques that can be used to balance between their head and heart. Responsibilities is having the correct person for the right position and not keeping the near and dear ones at a high-level position. Decision making is best suited for someone that has a pure heart but at the same time is pragmatic. They cannot have their past or present situations such as personal or financial crisis that impacts the decisions taken for the society. Management is the base for any event from the start to the end process. If it is organized perfectly the results would be outstanding, but a small error can have a great impact on the result. Education is required to all the members in the society and thus there are various modes of communicating techniques using hardware and software that can be used for communicating with bilingual people or physically handicapped people. Everyone should be alert about the issues in today’s world and be a part to take the right decision and support the philanthropist to do the best for them.

References

1. Anonymous. (2018, December 20). Charity vs. Philanthropy: How Are They Different? Giving Compass. https://givingcompass.org/article/charity-versus-philanthropy/
2. Anonymous. (2013, September 18). How to Get Started in Philanthropic Activities | Long Island Advisors. R. W. Rogé & Company. https://www.rwroge.com/2013/09/2951/
3. Becker, J. (n.d.). One of the Best Things About Generosity. Becoming Minimalist. https://www.becomingminimalist.com/generous/
4. Breeze, P. (2016). How new is the “new philanthropy?”. In M. Moody, & B. Breeze (Eds.),The philanthropy reader (pp. 455-459). Routeledge (Taylor and Francis).
5. Connolly, P. (2016). Balancing the head and heart in philanthropy. In M. Moody, & B. Breeze (Eds.),The philanthropy reader (pp. 488-492). Routeledge (Taylor and Francis).
6. Deng, G. (2015). The Influence of Elite Philanthropy on NGO Development in China. Asian Studies Review, 39(4), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2015.1084996
7. Handy, C. (2016). The New Philanthropists. In M. Moody, & B. Breeze (Eds.),The philanthropy reader (pp. 453). Routeledge (Taylor and Francis).
8. Luce, E. (2018, December 21). Is wealthy philanthropy doing more harm than good? Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/64d70736-0212-11e9-9d01-cd4d49afbbe3
9. Martin, M. (2016). The harms philanthropy can do. In M. Moody, & B. Breeze (Eds.), The philanthropy reader (pp. 269). Routeledge (Taylor and Francis).
10. Nie, L., Liu, H. K., & Cheng, W. (2016). Exploring Factors that Influence Voluntary Disclosure by Chinese Foundations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(5), 2374–2400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9689-0
11. Payton, R., & Moody, M. (2016). On the classical and modern meaning of Philanthropy. In M. Moody, & B. Breeze (Eds.),The philanthropy reader (pp. 31-36). Routeledge (Taylor and Francis).
12. Payton, R., & Moody, M. (2016). Taking philanthropy seriously. In M. Moody, & B. Breeze (Eds.),The philanthropy reader (pp. 9–16). Routeledge (Taylor and Francis).
13. Price, D. (2017, January 28). Bad luck or bad decision? Daily Republic. https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/local-features/local-lifestyle-columns/bad-luck-or-bad-decision-2/
14. Schervish, P. (2016). Why the Wealthy give. In M. Moody, & B. Breeze (Eds.),The philanthropy reader (pp. 196). Routeledge (Taylor and Francis).
15. Schmitt, M. (2015). Philanthropy, Politics and Democracy. Society, 52(6), 549–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-015-9946-7
16. Wallace, N. (2019, July 9). Nonprofit Leaders of Color Speak Out About Struggles and Triumphs. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. https://www.philanthropy.com/interactives/20190709_LeadersOfColor

The definition of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) carries a level of ambiguity within the public and private sectors. Although authors are influenced by popular definitions there is a clear expectation among literaries that businesses should uphold a set of moral values and/or actions (Garriga & Mele, 2004). One of the most popular approaches to CSR programming that businesses use as a guideline is an ethical framework (Lee, Kim, Lee, 2012). Ethics based CSR initiatives can be drivers of economic and financial business success. Moreover, it can improve public perception of the organization. Arguably most importantly, ethical CSR initiatives create long lasting impacts on the communities that they serve.

Business success and profits

First, CSR initiatives carry inherent business identity which can influence economic and financial outputs. According to Carroll’s 4 part framework to CSR, “the ethical responsibilities may be understood as those that a business may conscientiously take on above and beyond merely fulfilling the demands of the ‘letter-of-the-law’ (Anupam & Chhanda, 2014, p. 67). This means, that although ethics are not mandated to be integrated into the business model above governing legislature, organizations are socially expected to leverage their power for the social good. In making these critical CSR decisions, they inform and reinforce the values of their business and increase their profits. However, these decisions take time to refine. Businesses are most financially successful when they find the “sweet spot” between the needs of their business stakeholders and community members (Savitz & Weber, 2014, p 35). For example, In The Triple Bottom Line authors Savitz and Weber (2014), discuss GE’s “ecomagination” initiative in a social attempt to reduce carbon emissions. General Electric implemented new, clean-tech energy options, including installing 20,000 wind turbines in Latin America which generated 105 billion dollars in revenue by 2012 (ibid). Including this new philosophy in their organization integrated social sustainability ideals into their existing business model and also found profitability. This example illustrates how an organizations tacit ethical duties to society, are rewarded socially and financially.

Improves social perception

Second, ethical practices improve external stakeholder morale. Consumers expect organizations to provide exemplary services and products, but also to conduct their business ethically (Carroll, 2016, p.3). What society perceives as “ethical” or “moral” varies in different cultures and eras and is rarely articulated fully in policy or legislature. Therefore, it is up to the organization to accurately make decisions that mirror public expectations and remember that ethical responsibilities go beyond legal compliances (ibid). And Consumers notice when business fulfill this responsibility. According to a study by Berner (2006), in 1993 approximately 26% of the population could name a socially aware organization, and in 2004, the number had risen to 80%. Increasing members of the population are noticing how businesses conduct themselves outside of their traditional business model and therefore can be assumed that this trend will continue. Ethically based CSR programs do not just influence the public opinion of the overall organization, but also of the products. In a study by Brown and Dacin (1997), they studied how overall CSR may influence perception of individual products. The found that organizations that position themselves around “worthy causes and community involvement” have more positive customer interactions and these interactions influence how consumers perceive their products (Brown & Dacin, 1997, p. 79). These findings suggest that more ethically driven organizations influence consumers more positively and are seen to have a superior product.

Community impact

Lastly, CSR initiatives leave a profound effect on the targeted and untargeted communities they impact. For example, TOMS is an organization that has ethical ideals integrated directly into their business model. With their “one for one” model, for every pair of shoes purchased they donate a pair to a child in poverty (TOMS, 2018). To date, they have donated 86 million new pairs of shoes to children in need (ibid). Another example would be Lego, who Forbes magazine ranked as one of the top organization for CSR responsibility using their Build the Change initiative (Forbes, 2017). This program employs staff members to find sustainable opportunities for Lego production in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (ibid). Both of these organizations have positively impacted their external communities towards a happier and more successful world. TOMS uses their business model for change whereas Lego uses their powerful position to build long lasting change.

Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives represent an important benchmark in redefining the role of businesses in our social and economic context. By doing this, businesses become more desirable and successful. Moreover, business success and profitability are linked to successful CSR initiatives. As a society, we rely on them to accurately and carefully incorporate nuanced social norms into their ethical best practices. However, when this is done correctly, the lasting impact that it can make on the communities is life changing.

Overview

Philanthropy refers to a charitable act carried out for the betterment of society. The defining characteristic of philanthropic acts is their voluntary nature (Balch, 2017). One cannot claim something is philanthropic if they are being forced to do so by law or regulatory bodies. In corporate practice, this means that philanthropic actions are taken out of a company’s desire to uphold principles of corporate social responsibility (or CSR for short). In this report I will briefly outline why and how a company may choose to engage in philanthropy as CSR, and examine the purported benefits and drawbacks of corporate acts of philanthropy.

Why Philanthropy & Modes of Philanthropy

There is a commonly held argument that corporations have a responsibility to the societies they are a part of. In this sense, philanthropy can be viewed as an act of giving back to a community which has thus far supported the corporation (von Schnurbein et al., 2016). In this sense, CSR is connected with the notion of corporate citizenship- that corporations can and do play a role in defining societal norms, conventions, and beliefs. Philanthropic acts are thus a way to expand a corporation’s brand or to actualize corporate values. For instance, TD Bank Group sponsoring a variety of arts and cultural events (such as the TD Community Arts Award) promotes the bank as a supporter of a diverse and artistic society. Their corporate values are thus reinforced and legitimized by this philanthropic sponsorship.

In terms of methods of philanthropy, Husted distinguishes between three different types: cheque-book, in-house, and collaborative (2003). Cheque-book CSR involves explicit contributions of cash or other materials to charities, but little action beyond that. In-house CSR allows for corporate control, but can then limit credibility. Of the three, he argues that the third approach is most effective, allowing the company some say over how resources and funding are used, while deferring to the expertise of non-corporate partners (Husted, 2003).

Benefits to Philanthropic CSR

Aside from the apparent public relations boost that successful acts of philanthropy bring- there are key strategic and financial benefits that come along with this. It has been shown that there is a significant association between philanthropic contributions and future revenue. Indeed, when corporations promote improvements in certain sectors of society, such as investing in employee health or technology, they can reap economic benefits down the line (Balch, 2017). Porter and Kramer identify this “strategic philanthropy” as highly effective, and that as much as possible, companies should work to align their social and economic goals (2002).

Against Corporate Philanthropy

While it may seem like there are no possible downsides to philanthropic activities undertaken by corporations and that they exist simply as a “win-win” phenomena, this is not entirely the case. von Scnurbein et al. point to an increasing obligation to participate in corporate philanthropy as a potential threat to business, suggesting that, “If companies were free of moral demands from outside, they could set their philanthropic engagement aside and invest in different, business-related fields” (2016).

Nick Lin-Hi emphasizes how these acts of CSR are, “…economically useful and not entirely problematic, as long as they are viewed as instruments of the classic marketing mix. However, good deeds become problematic when they are declared as CSR. In this respect, philanthropic activities should be seen for what they are: marketing instruments to foster corporate interests and therefore instruments to generate Profits” (2010, p. 79). Key to Lin-Hi’s argument is that these acts should not be interpreted as philanthropy, which in fact encourages the view that, “…making Profits is wicked and immoral” (2010, p. 79). His argument here is that corporations exist to make profits and that by attempting to obscure this fact, we are implicitly suggesting that this act is something to be ashamed of. Having said that, if the company is not supported by the broader society, it is hard to see how profits would be retained. Perhaps it is indeed in the best interest of corporations to at least feign interest (if not truly believe) in philanthropic CSR.

Concluding Thoughts

It is my opinion that the economic and social benefits derived from CSR outweigh the potentially negative implications of such an act. We live in a society and our ultimate obligation should be to them- philanthropic acts from corporations are one of the many ways in which we can further build and sustain a healthy society. If corporations have the means to provide, they should continue to support deserving charities, organizations, and programs that promote pro-social corporate and community values. In the long term, the research is clear, this leads to better outcomes for the corporation and society.

As the environment get more and pillaged by monolithic corporate entities, those of us with an penchant for such things are becoming interested in building more sustainable policy in the vain hope that it will make a difference and halt the inexorable deterioration of the natural environment that we have begat.

Environment Corporate Responsibility projects is a band aid, “easy-way-out” solution that serves only to buy hollow goodwill from the unquestioning public rather than actually help anything. Environmental Commitments, although a good idea in principle, is just a corporation’s name for throwing a mere percentage of its financial resources at a cause to say they did something.

Typical Environmental CSR includes policies, initiatives, or programs that corporations do to better the Environment, at least on paper, but in actuality the primary focus is often their business interests (Today, many businesses are combining the growing public concern for environmental sustainability into their PR spin campaigns. There are a bunch of different ways that business can do this:

Some corporations or enterprises report to have environmentally sustainable practices are programs that are integral to the operation and success of an organization’s business model. These types of CSR’s proudly boasted about in the company’s mandate and are often masking their true interests. We should really all be doing more as a society to help, but the fact is that most of us are selfish, self interested, and unable to see the big picture even when that big picture is barreling down upon us like a global catastrophe.

Lots of orgs create eco – partnerships and policies. Some places create a sitting council that advises on sustainable practices or strategy – which universally go unlistened to. For example, lots of big corps like Nike, have created an environmental policy and framework or even separate no profit wings which deal with deflecting criticism for other aspects of the business. c

A bunch of, businesses can also donate or fundraise for an environmental cause. This is probably the most common and widespread as well as the easiest method – plus it comes with tax write offs. Its easy because any corporation, whether it cares about the planet or not, can give back to this cause regardless of their shady business dealings. However, corporations must be cautious in communicating their motives for environmentally conscious causes. Environmentally conscious initiatives are a CSR approach from that gets acknowledged by consumers and business partners. Regardless of the type of eco-CSR an organization implements, it is imperative that they do it in a good way.

References

1. Anupam, G. and Chhanda, C. (2014). “Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility: Ethics in Action”. Global Virtue Ethics Review, 6(4), 60-99.
2. Brown, T. J. and Dacin, P. A. (1997). “The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses”. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68-84. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1252190.
3. Garriga, E. and Mele, D. (2004). “Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1-2), 51 – 71. Retreived from https://journals-scholarsportal-info.ez proxy.lib.ryerson.ca/pdf/01674544/v53i1-2/51_csrtmtt.xml
4. Strauss, K.. (2017). “The 10 Companies With the Best CSR Reputations in 2017. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/09/13/the-10-companies-with-the-best-csr-reputations-in-2017/#696b7b83546b
5. Luo, X. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2006). “Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value”. American Marketing Association, Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1-18. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/30162111.
6. n.a. (2018). TOMS: Improving Lives. Retrieved from https://www.toms.ca/improving-lives
7. Balch, O. (2017). Deconstructing CSR: Corporate philanthropy. Retrieved from http://www.ethicalcorp.com/deconstructing-csr-corporate-philanthropy
8. Husted, B 2003. Governance choices for corporate social responsibility: to contribute, collaborate or internalize? Long Range Planning. 36 (5): 481-498.
9. Lin-Hi, N. (2010). The problem with a narrow – minded interpretation of CSR: Why CSR has nothing to do with philanthropy. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 1(1), 79. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/apps/doc/A243046275/AONE?u=otta77973&sid=AONE&xid=eb50d251
10. Porter, M E, & Kramer, M. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review. 80 (12): 5–16. von Schnurbein, G., Seele, P., & Lock, I. (2016). Exclusive corporate philanthropy: Rethinking the nexus of CSR and corporate philanthropy. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(2), 280-294.
11. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/docview/1828153044?accountid=14701

Think back on history of presidents all the way to the very first, George Washington. What do almost all of them have in common? How about the Apollo 11 crew… What do they all share in common? Lets include the eighty percent of the top Fortune 500 companies too. Do you know what we get? It just so happens that they all ended up being part of a Greek organization in their college years. Dating back to the first chapter, Phi Beta Kappa, back in the 1770s, they were probably even around before some of the many universities around the United States. Now, why did I bring a little history up? The reason is that although from the beginning to the present day, it has changed overtime and will not be fading from colleges anytime soon due to the support schools get from them. But what I want to talk about is why people still join them. I know it is not part of every student’s college experience, but the participation within them still seems to be continuing and growing in some cases even.

The first reason, and possibly the biggest reason in my opinion, why people join Greek life is networking. When I refer to that I mean on a larger scale. Yes, you meet a bunch of new people in the sorority or fraternity you are joining as well as meeting people from the others as well. Mainly you meet a bunch of new people form either the events that your organization holds or other like-minded individuals from the joint social events you hold with the other organizations. But what people do not see is the big networking within both a Greek organization and Greek life as a whole. In the Forbes 400, which is a list that comprises the top 400 wealthiest people in the world, they were able to spot at least thirty of them that were associated to Greek life (Forbes). If you take that number and divide it by four hundred, it gives you seven percent of the wealthiest people were in Greek life. That list may not even include the list of actors or actresses, musicians, athletes, chief executive officers, and other people in other fields that you may look up to or idolize. For example, Robert Kraft (chief executive officer and chairman of the New England Patriots), Michael Jordan (the one who people consider as probably the greatest of all time in the NBA), Lisa Murkowski and Kirsten Gillibrand (both are senators for their perspective states), Carrie Underwood (singer), and the list just goes on and on. (Forbes, Hollywood Reporter). Now tell me, who would not want to be part of a network that already has many notable names and probably more to come.

Another reason why people join Greek life is philanthropy. These are another one of those things that may go unheard of but remains true that they take part in service and community. Greek life community as whole makes up the biggest network of volunteers in the United States. Let that sink in for a bit. Each organization has their own charity and causes that they raise money and donate to for their philanthropy. For these examples, since I could not find any overall statistics for it, I will be choosing one fraternity and sorority that is not associated to our school to make this unbiased. First, we will talk about the fraternity’s, Kappa Sigma, service and philanthropy, Kappa Sigma Military Heroes Campaign. Within the years of 2015 to 2017, their organization alone raised more than $6.7 million dollars and 1.4 million hours of community service. For their philanthropy, they help raise money to assist military veterans and their families who their loved ones were wounded in combat. Since the start back in 2007, they have already donated more than 1.8 million dollars to their philanthropy since then (KappaSigma). For our sorority counterparts, I will be talking about Delta Delta Delta, also known as Tri Delta, and their philanthropy. Their philanthropy focus is on St. Jude’s hospital, which was formed back in 1999. From that time to 2014 they raised and donated more than twenty-six million dollars over that span. Later that year, they made a commitment to raising at least sixty million dollars by the year 2024 (TriDelta). The amount of time spent, and money raised are definitely very appreciated, but goes unnoticed due to what people mainly see from them.

This leads us to our next reason, which is the social scene. Greek life is highly known for this due to how media depicts them and what people have seen. If you go on YouTube and type in along the lines of “Greek life party” or something similar, you can see the countless of videos of people filming at their parties, which can lead to what people normally think. Animal house is a perfect example for this. It depicts how a Greek organization can help make you be a better improved person or how it can make you into a frequent party person. In the movie Neighbors, the character Zac Efron played depicts how society thinks Greek life members act (The Antlantic). There is a reason why colleges still advertise Greek life in their student communities as it is something that most people that are part of it enjoy.

This leads to my next point stereotypes. This will be broken up into several paragraphs touching up on each one of them. Although the numerous stereotypes are crazy, I will be choosing ones that I hear more frequently.

The first one I will address is “they pay for their friends”. People are aware that every member in Greek life has to pay dues. It can cost well over $3,000 per semester, depending on which college you attend, organization you are a part of, and especially if you live in the house and pay for room and board fees, which are sometimes cheaper than the dorms . I myself paid $750 for my first semester and then $650 the next semester. The dues that we pay each semester goes towards our budget for the year which our national headquarters helps set up. About half of our dues go towards the national headquarters while the rest fund chapter needs (Columbia Spectator). I find it worth it due to my experience so far at least. We have to fund things such as rush where we hold activities for everyone interested in joining, philanthropy events, and countless social events. We had events almost every other week, which always gave me something to do or keep me busy. We cannot expect to do all those without any initial funding.

For this portion, I will hit two at the same time since it goes hand in hand, the excessive drinking and poor grades. The drinking part may be true as around twenty-five percent of non-Greek students do poorly on projects and exams due to drinking while it increases to about fifty percent for people in Greek life. This is something that the Greek community as a whole are trying to fix, but do not let that sway how they perform academically overall. Since Greek organizations require minimum grade point averages ranging from 2.5 to 3.0, it helps our members have higher grade point averages than normal students. Which in result helps out in the long run as people in Greek life have a seventy-one percent chance of graduating compared to the normal students having a fifty percent chance (elitedaily).

Onto my last stereotype I would like to cover is one that I think is a bit controversial and affects the overall image of Greek Life is the diversity and being selective. Let me start off by saying there are many Greek organizations that appear to be dominant by race. The reason why I say “appear” is because of how our media and society decides how its depicted. They do not show the fact that there are other Greek organizations such as Divine Nine, which are pre-dominantly black, and other organizations that are based off other minority races and religions. In our media, Greek organizations are pictured as pre-dominantly white. This might be the case when you take a look at the composites of the more well-known Greek organizations. You will notice how majority of them are in fact white. But I think the reason for that is you already have your mind set up telling yourself that this fraternity will not take me because of this or that. But as a minority myself, Asian, I did not let that affect me. I tried to convince some of my close friends who were Hispanics to rush or rush with me and they did not because of our skin color. When I went to different fraternities and got to know about the people in them or the organization, they treated me like every other person that was interested. Out of all the people who got accepted in my class three out of fifteen were minority, me being Asian, one being Hispanic, and one being black. “How many minorities rushed when the three of us rushed?” is what you are probably thinking now and the answer to that is three.

Greek life is beneficial regardless of what others have to say about them. The cost may seem high, but for what it is worth I definitely see it being worth it in the end. Once you graduate, you will not have to worry about dues anymore and end up being part of a huge community that is unfamiliar to others.

These days, when we hear about philanthropists, people generally praise them and call them heroes or “angels”. When wealthy people use their money to help those in need, people are expected to give utmost gratitude and praise them for their selflessness. People or communities, more often than not, accept them wholeheartedly without uncertainties because of the need to have the financial or material support to address their dire condition possibly caused by disasters.

Philanthropy, as defined in Merriam Webster, is the practice of giving money and time to help make life better for other people. From this definition, it really sounds humanitarian that deserves nothing but gratitude. However, philanthropy, specifically in a democratic environment, should be questioned and critiqued. Philanthropy, especially when practiced by big and private conglomerate individuals, is characterized by their need to boost their personal appeal and eventually gain a control of power and influence over the people. And by giving it nothing more than gratitude, we are allowing power that has tyrannical potential to take over us. Rob Reich, director of the Center of Ethics in Society at Stanford University, states that “big philanthropy is an odd encouragement of plutocratic voice in a democratic society.” According to him, philanthropy defined as the deployment of private wealth for some public influence is an exercise of power. And in a democratic society, all power deserves scrutiny, and not gratitude.1 Another thing to pinpoint here is how wealthy people use philanthropy by creating private foundations in order to gain more wealth, because foundations are tax-subsidized. They use helping to address the needs of people as an excuse to diminish the amount of their taxes. With the tax that is supposed to be given to the government subsidized, there is now lesser funds that should be used to create more public services. It now becomes a power play used to put on pedestal the privileged and further oppressed the poor. It creates greater inequality.

However, philanthropy, as accepted wholeheartedly by people, is not a new thing. We cannot really blame the people for not being critical about its power dynamics. They see it as the most accessible help they could receive due to the incapability of the state to address all the needs of its citizens. For people, it is better to be subsumed by unchecked power than to continuously suffer for not accepting their support. At this point, the need for continuous education and conscientization is important. As what Reich have said, “instead of extending our enormous gratitude to the greatest philanthropists among us, we should be scrutinizing them, not because philanthropy is bad but because it is an exercise of power.”1

With rolling green hills and rivers, Davos looks like the Von Trapp family’s paradise. Just a tiny village nestled in a Swiss valley, Davos is home to the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting. Each year, the worlds’ elite business, social, and political leaders – including the likes of Bill Gates, Angela Merkel, Al Gore, Matt Damon – meet for four days to discuss “improving the state of the world,” (Meredith, “Who’s Going to Davos?”). Following these leaders is an entourage of heavily-armed snipers and soldiers who roam Davo’s streets and protect the world’s greatest philanthropic icons – at a hefty price of $9.37 million, paid for by local, state, and the national Swiss governments (Ellyatt, “Soldiers, Snipers and Security”).

Among this year’s attendees was Michael Dell, multi-billionaire and founder of Dell Technologies. Dell participated in a panel vaguely regarding “making digital globalization inclusive,” along with a handful of digital experts, historians, and industry heavyweights (Fraher and Grant, “Dell CEO Joins Davos”). Not once did the panel specify exactly who could reap the benefits of digital globalization (though judging from Dell’s net worth, predominantly himself). Yet U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was mentioned frequently, and her ideas about a 70-percent marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans inspired heated discussion. When Dell was singled out for his opinion (he was the only multi-billionaire on panel), the audience burst into laughter before he could give a response. Dell coolly answered: “I feel much more comfortable with our ability … to allocate those funds than I do giving them to the government… I don’t think it will help the growth of the US economy. Name a country where that’s worked – ever.” Co-panelist and MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson jumped in to answer: “the United States,” (Fraher and Grant, “Dell CEO Joins Davos”).

The audience fell silent. Though Ocasio-Cortez was not at Davos, her political force simmered into conversation, churning an unspoken tension among WEF’s attendees. The proposed 70% marginal tax rate policy targeted those with at least $10 million, and intended to address America’s ever-growing wage gap. The policy would undoubtedly affect most attendees. Almost all members held a single stance: taxation is ineffective at fixing society’s ills, and that most ills are best solved through the rich engaging in philanthropy, such as providing education and technology to the poor. The idea that governments are too corrupt and ineffective to function is not new; Trump’s successful 2015 campaign slogan “Drain the Swamp” indicates how popular this sentiment is, among rich and poor alike. Moreover, philanthropy has never been more fashionable, with donations from businesses and individuals contributing to 2.1% of the U.S. GDP (“Giving Statistics”). Yet swirling amid a radical Trumpian government and growing philanthropy remains the stark reality of massive income inequality.

The self-righteousness displayed at WEF, the contradiction of the super-rich as saviors of the poor, and weak government are the critical preoccupations of Anand Giridharadas’ wildly successful and eye-opening book, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. A former New York Times columnist turned best-selling author, Giridharadas sets fire to some of the world’s most-generous, and torches these leaders on their own stages by revealing their self-interests and blatant insensitivity for recent history. The rich and powerful will fight for equality and justice in any way they can – except for in ways that threaten their position at the top of the social order.

Giridharadas openly admits he once worked alongside Dell and his kind, also believing that he could create significant change. His own hypocrisy becomes his strength, and he successfully guides his readers in-and-out of this strange world. Rather than weighing down readers with numbers and political analysis, Giridharadas stages a series of biopics that reveals the alibis and strategies used by Dell and his kind to justify their philanthropy. What’s worse, Giriharadas points out, is that the 0.001% genuinely believe in their kindness. The Sacklers catalyzed the opioid crisis, but zealously donate to education and art; the CEO of Volkswagen launched an electric car initiative to “go green,” while cheating on the company’s emission tests. Giridharadas amasses their desires to improve the world using their wealth and power into a central theme he calls “Marketworld.” It’s a feel-good world where PowerPoint presentations solve workplace sexism, and billionaire CEOs hold seminars titled “Sharing is Caring.”

Marketworld’s greatest sin, however, is its genuine belief in “win-win” solutions. Marketworld chooses to attack humanitarian problems with impact investments, sustainable capitalism, and social enterprise – it believes that a profitable product can solve social ills (win for the business elite, and win for the needy). For instance, Airbnb “attacks income inequality” by letting homeowners rent out their rooms or apartments for extra side-income. Yet its creators forgot to consider that those most in need of income subsidies are likely too poor to own their own properties, let alone extra rooms. Even worse, landowners have realized that renting to well-off Airbnb users makes more money than renting to conventional tenants, pushing the poor to outskirts of cities (Hinsliff, “Airbnb and the so-called Sharing Economy”). Airbnb, along with every “win-win” solution, Giridharadas expertly argues, does nothing to attack real societal issues, but instead profits from the status quo.

Like dieters who would do anything to lose weight except eat less, Marketworlders would rather invest in a million social enterprises than question their own actions. In order to have the equal-opportunity economy that Marketworld supposedly champions, Marketworld must quit their win-win mindset, and take real sacrifice. Marketworlders would have to offer fair wages to its employees, support unions, pay high levels of personal and corporate income tax, and support public institutions like school systems and welfare rather than their own private organizations. Economic equality cannot exist when social inequality is so high. As Giridharadas puts it, people wanted to do “various side projects instead of doing their day jobs more honorably,” (Giridharadas, 266).

At Davos, Dell and his kind actively practice cognitive dissonance. They celebrate the new economic world they forged, which has rewarded them so generously. They effortlessly glide from seminars about the dangers of climate change and growing inequality, to closed-room dinners where they praise deregulation of corporations and tax cuts for billionaires. They conveniently overlook growing pollution, rising tax rates for the lower class, the death of America’s middle class, and the risk of another financial crisis. All of this – because again – solving any one of these issues would require a real sacrifice of money and power.

Perhaps Giridharadas’ most gut-wrenching point is that average readers and young Americans praise Davos participants for their humanitarian work. Bill Gates is often seen as the champion of the poor – one of the “good guys.” And Mark Zuckerberg has single-handedly provided free internet to nearly 100 million new users. Most Americans tend to side with the rich – believing that the true reason for most social ills is an out-of-touch government, and that creating private institutions can offer better solutions. Again and again, Giridharadas reveals the self-dealing that belies the philanthropy of the mega-rich: Gates recently denounced Warren’s three-percent wealth tax, claiming the money is better used for “a little bit [of] consumption, and hopefully the balance to do philanthropic things,” while Zuckerberg profited from 100 million new Facebook users (Bogost, “Bill Gate’s Fortune”). Governments may be inefficient, but the rich, dripping with paternalism, are no better.

While Giridharadas’ arguments are richly nuanced and caustically witty, his concluding remarks leave something to be desired. His portrait of the elite class, though devastating, thorough, and blunt, is followed by an amateurish analysis of reform. He simply concludes that we must create a stronger centralized government. He, like Ocasio-Cortez, flirts with higher income marginal tax rates and tighter regulations on corporations as possible solutions, but he side-steps away from showing readers how to fight a system already heavily dominated by elites. The elite, as Giridharadas drives home repeatedly, already use their money and power to bend government in their favor. Readers are left with an unsettling sense of dread that our current democracy is irreparable.

Giridharadas does acknowledge the complexity of the situation, and he openly admits that change does not come easy. He interviews others like him, insider-outsiders who are aware of their positions within the elite, and he carefully considers their methods of reform and their value. Most notably, he interviews Darren Walker, the president of the Ford Foundation who is painfully aware of his position as a part of the business elite. Having grown up poor with a single mother, he now oversees a multibillion-dollar investment portfolio, and spends most of his days giving away money for charity. Like Giridharadas, Walker grappled with his own privilege and the merits of his day job, stating that his guilt “definitely nags at [him] on a daily basis” (Giridharadas, 170). Walker knew what kind of world he wanted to live in, but he was also realistic about his power within Marketworld. He, unlike Giridharadas, decided to work within Marketworld and try to change the opinions of the elite by revealing the consequences of their actions. While he has managed to change some opinions (most notably Robert Rubin, former U.S. Secretary of Treasury), the vast majority dislikes how he frames Marketworld as the culprit, calling Walker “a real turn-off.” Surprisingly, Giridharadas is somewhat hopeful. “Perhaps [Marketworld] would see the self-preservational quality of so many of their approaches to social change,” he writes (Giridharadas, 171). Perhaps tiny steps are better than none at all.

A year has passed since the publication of Winners Take All. America’s political landscape is almost unrecognizable – for the first time in recent history, Americans are seriously considering a 70% tax rate, or at the very least, a high-income tax rate on corporations and the mega-rich. With the upcoming presidential election, America has a real chance at tearing down Marketworld. In fact, most of the 2020 Democratic candidates, including Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, and Andrew Yang, have called for higher taxes on the wealthy. While all candidates make tall promises, it’s important to differentiate who is peddling real change, and who is peddling fake change. As Giridharadas repeatedly mentions in his book, a lot of people who sound and champion similar agendas are actually quite different. Winners Take All keeps voters from becoming unwitting enablers with a simple message: inequality threatens democracy. Real change requires a loss of power.

Works Cited

1. Bogost, Ian. “Bill Gates’s Fortune Isn’t Going Anywhere.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 7 Nov. 2019, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/11/bill-gates-wrong-about-warrens-wealth-tax/601594/.
2. Ellyatt, Holly. “Soldiers, Snipers and Security at Davos: Protecting the World’s Rich and Powerful.” CNBC, CNBC, 14 Jan. 2019, www.cnbc.com/2018/01/22/davos-security-snipers-and-soldiers.html.
3. Fraher, John, and Nico Grant. “Dell CEO Joins Davos Debate on 70% Tax Rate: ‘Not Supportive.’” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 23 Jan. 2019, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-23/dell-ceo-joins-davos-debate-on-70-tax-rate-not-supportive.
4. Giridharadas, Anand. Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. Alfred A. Knopf, 2018.
5. “Giving Statistics.” Charity Navigator, Giving USA 2018, 12 June 2018, www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42.
6. Hinsliff, Gaby. “Airbnb and the so-Called Sharing Economy Is Hollowing out Our Cities | Gaby Hinsliff.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 31 Aug. 2018, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/31/airbnb-sharing-economy-cities-barcelona-inequality-locals.
7. Meredith, Sam. “World Economic Forum 2019: Who’s Going to Davos This Year?” CNBC, CNBC, 18 Jan. 2019, www.cnbc.com/2019/01/15/world-economic-forum-2019-who-is-going-to-davos-this-year.html.