Charities often bend over backwards in delivering value and partnership for companies, but should they? Denise Lillya says it’s time for companies to view philanthropy for what it is: giving, not receiving.
The accepted wisdom in corporate fundraising is, if you want a company to support you, say what you can do for it: how many millions of football supporters will see the logo; how it will raise the company’s profile; increase brand awareness; save on publicity; cut marketing costs; contribute to staff training, with opportunities for skill and leadership development; improve morale.
It’s good advice on a tactical level; companies usually want to hear what they’re going to get out of any giving; they are receptive to arguments that it is a saving, an opportunity, an investment.
One problem with this is that they then cloak the real motive for giving behind a barrel load of bull, inflated or suspect figures about what they give (if they detail figures at all), and emotive reasons for why. They never (in my experience), subtract what has been saved by the company through various budget lines.
Having just completed a year’s research on the giving of 550 companies for the ninth edition of The Guide to UK Company Giving, it’s clear that too many companies continue to regard philanthropy as a means by which they can benefit – ironic as that is.
One of the main obstacles to collating research on what companies give to charities and good causes is the lack of regulation and good practice around how companies report. There is no statutory requirement to be transparent, clear and accurate. The more self-interested motivations mentioned above dominate the presentation and cutting through the marketing waffle can be nearly impossible.
Because of this, analyses are usually difficult to undertake. For example, two major pharmaceutical companies which give vast amounts in-kind, by way of medicines abroad, assess their giving in completely different ways. One reports on the cost to the company in terms of the market value of the goods, while the other reports on the production cost.
There are many and various ways in which companies value their giving and some truly creative ways of fitting their own needs under the umbrella of CSR. For example, some – incredibly – consider ‘employing people’ as part of their community giving policy. To be able to put that spin on a prerequisite is just bizarre!
How about some good old philanthropy for goodness’ sake, companies? How about just putting your hand in your pocket and giving, just because it’s a good thing to do? Perhaps consider you have a responsibility to your own community beyond making money from it. No need to massage any figures; clear, open and simple reporting, a well-deserved pat on the back just for being good people who want to benefit society. There are good examples of this but sadly they’re outnumbered by the not-so-good.
If they were willing to listen, companies could learn much from the best trusts and foundations about how to give well, and how to report on that giving. Charity staff and trustees, not marketing executives or CSR experts, are the people to whom they should turn.
I found that some of the most accessible information and best giving practices were from those companies that had set up a separate foundation – charitable objects, independent trustees, professionals making the giving decisions, a designated regulator and ah, Sorp! When it comes to giving, the legal accounting framework for charities is by some distance the more transparent and rigorous.
