Kindly sponsored by the Shell Foundation
Date: Monday 29th September, 19.30 - 20.30
Location: Room 110, First Floor, Jury's Inn
Speakers: Andrew Mitchell MP Andrew Hind, Charity Commission Penny Fowler, Oxfam UK Kurt Hoffman, Shell Foundation
Chair: Ian Mulheirn, SMF
Just how far can business help in the fight against global poverty?
The need to tackle global poverty has never been more urgent. The Earth Institute estimates that more than one billion people, one-sixth of the world’s population, lives in extreme poverty. It is a problem that many governments, NGO’s and individuals are committed to addressing through a wide range of projects and initiatives. But what about business?
Gordon Brown has recently launched a ‘call to action’, calling upon multinationals to help fight poverty and put the international community back on track for meeting the UN Development Goals by 2015. He believes that the role of business is vital, not just in terms of giving aid, but more importantly in providing the expertise and opportunities that will allow deprived communities the chance to life themselves out of poverty.
It is a growing trend for large multinational organisations to have charitable foundations attached; the term ‘philanthrocapitalism’ has been coined for applying business and market thinking to social problems and is becoming increasingly well used. For example the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is often cited as a good example of how philanthropy can help to make the world a better place. With $38.7 billion at their disposal they are fighting ill public health around the world and education inequalities in the United States.
However, this new approach to charitable work is not without its critics, many of them extremely vocal in their opposition. One of potential problems is that donors might sometimes have too big a say in what should be done with the money, focussing on their wishes rather than the recipients’ needs. Critics, such as Tristram Hunt and Michael Edwards, warn that the case for philanthrocapitalism is overplayed, believing that it does not have the potential to deliver real results and also that the use of market drivers is unhealthy for democracy.
A counter argument points to the widespread failure of many aid initiatives to deliver results. The reason for this could be found within the characteristics of the third sector; since there is very little competition at play, a lot of charities and NGO’s are run inefficiently and money is not put where it brings the most use. This flaw could potentially be ameliorated by introducing more of the forces which make capitalism so efficient. Advocates of philanthrocapitalism want to foster an infrastructure for philanthropy, which resembles stock markets, investment banks, consultancies and the like.
Key questions