Late this week, Sean Stannard-Stockton sent me an invitation to participate in a new blog carnival that will be hosted by Tactical Philanthropy next week. The inaugural topic is to chime in on the recent criticism of the investment policies of the Gates Foundation.
First a few knowledge points for perspective:
- The business of foundations is to create a seed of money that will allow for continuous giving for years and hopefully generations to come.
- Foundations usually invest the 'seed' money so that the profits of such investments can be used for doing good.
- Foundations must give out a certain percentage of their profits each year to be able to avoid paying taxes.
Summary of the LA Times Articles: The Gates Foundation is heavily invested in a number of companies who have business practices that are honestly pretty icky.
Most recently I wrote about letting go and abandoning cynicism. I have really set that as a goal for myself this year. In today's "bad news is king" environment, it is so easy just to sit here and automatically assume the worst. However, if I listen to my instincts, I don't think the intention of the Gates Foundation was to make money off of bad business practices or by hurting other people. My instincts also tell me that the Gates family and Mr. Buffet had 'doing good' as their primary goal when they endowed the foundation. I do not subscribe the cynical notion that the foundation was established to invest in the business of friends and avoid taxes.
Having had a childhood and adolescence where I accumulated a large number of friends whose parents were involved in pastoral/ordained occupations, I am well versed in the presumption that primary intention is important but it is not everything. Afterall, a minister is expected to walk the walk and talk the talk... and so are their kids. Afterall, it consistent application of guiding principles differentiates the Genuine from the Hypocrite.
It is important to recognize that never in history has there been a bigger philanthropic organization than the Gates Foundation. Just like my friends whose parents were in ordained religious occupations, like it or not--- this makes the Gates Foundation a leader and a target. As a leader, their practices will always be under scrutiny. Just like the minister that says an expliative when he hits his thumb with a hammer, the Gates Foundation's intention may never be to 'do wrong' but they will always be called out for any behavior contrary to their guiding belief "that every life has equal value." Its not always fair to be called out, but the universal call is to always do your best. When you don't, then you need to make changes to make sure you are trying to do your best.
The power and influence of the Gates Foundation is evolving. It is definitely a fallacy to assume that their power, influence, and ability to 'do good' will be the same tomorrow as it is today. In my view, the Gates Foundation needs to make sure they focus on doing their best and subsequently should take this revelation and subsequent criticism as an opportunity to become better and make an even bigger impact.
Despite the Gates Foundation's view of their influence and their "passive investor" mentality, their investing power is uniquely positioned and perceived to have significant power to change and influence business practices. Unfortunately the mantle of perception can be quite heavy. Couple that with the mantle of doing your best, the Gates Foundation will always be under scrutiny-- at least until their action or inaction firmly places them in the category of hypocrite versus genuine.
Yes.... being a leader can suck at times. Keeping in mind that profound and lasting social change often occurs at an extraordinarily slow pace, the Gates Foundation is positioned to become a serious agent of global cultural innovation. I know they don't want the job, but for now they seem to have it. So...if for no other reason that people will be looking to them as a leader, the Gates Foundation has the unique opportunity to really make sure that every life on this planet knows they have value. If they systematically begin to take positions on how they with consciously invest their money, then businesses will see that their unethical, predatory, uncaring business practices cost them important investment money.
My spending strategies are certainly not what they should be. With that said, we all have more room to be better at spending and investing more consciously when we can. I know I certainly do. I have no doubt that every time I find that "I can't pass it up" bargain, that I there is the chance that I am giving my money to a sweatshop operator. While sweatshops are bad, I am also tormented with the idea/rationalization that at least that person has some means of making some money and the subsequent guilt that comes from the inability to determine which is worse--- extreme poverty or being treated like scum. While on a small scale, I know that this is the exact choice that the Gates Foundation will be face with in the future.
I suppose this torment is why I personally try to focus on my little corner of the world and small, but nimble, nonprofits. This is where my donated resources (time or money) directly impact individuals and the community around me. I can see the changes slowly unfolding. However, the GatesGate news item gently reminds me that thoughtlessly spending/investing can also be seen as turning a blind eye to unjustice too.
Powered by Qumana
Very, very well said and thought provoking. I share your inner torment on a number of similar issues and choices each day, and agree that Gates, because they are in such a position of power and influence, has such an opportunity to take a stand and expand their reach in terms of influence and voice. And bravo on letting go of cynicism...I'm right with you when you say that you don't believe their intentions are self-serving. And in the end, I'm so glad to see these kinds of discussions are happening now--I love how ordinary people and pundits alike are getting in there and really thinking about philanthropy, how to do it and its implications. That in itself is something to lose some cynicism over. :D
Posted by: Lisa Kays | January 24, 2007 at 09:15 AM