|
Pareto
Talk
Corporate
Fundraising – Beneficial to charities or just making corporate look
good?
By Dominique
Antarakis
 They arrived armed with props – a
big stick, a pink wig, a bar of soap, a bottle of water – to argue
the proposition Corporate fundraising – beneficial to charities
or just making corporates look good?
First in to bat was Mei Ling Ho, from United Way. Ho maintained
that not only is the corporate sector responsible for a
considerable slice of the fundraising pie, accounting for $3.3
billion out of the $11 billion raised each year, “the opportunities
are huge, and charities need to capitalise”.
“There’s enormous growth potential, and if you look at the fact
that 30% of companies are not engaged, if we can demonstrate
how others are benefiting, we can convince them to engage as well,”
she said.
The way to do that, she said, was to “encourage corporates to
look good by promoting Corporate Social ‘Opportunity’ rather than
‘Responsibility’”, based on the understanding that if corporates
get into it for the opportunity rather than because they feel they
have to, they will be in it for the long term.
She acknowledged, though, that strategic philanthropy requires a
corporation finding an organisation to support that is a good fit.
“And the relationship needs to work for the charity as well – and
if it’s not working, we need to improve it”.
“Don’t bother” was the message from the opposition team on the
night, made up of Julijana Trifunovic from Jeans for Genes, and
John Burns, Médecins Sans Frontières Australia.
“Charities who engage with corporates are living in fantasy
land,” claimed Trifunovic. “We’re making corporates look good, but
[on their side] it’s an act, a performance. CSR, corporate
volunteering – they’ll say, we can’t give you any money, but 30
people from Finance can come over on July 20. What’s the use of
people volunteering in the office on a date that suits them – give
us their salaries instead!”
Trifunovic told the audience that corporates use the connection
with charities to shamelessly promote their own products and make
money. Wielding a cake of soap which supposedly raises money
towards breast cancer research, she claimed that there’s often a
cap to the corporate donation – say, $150,000 – and once that’s
been reached, buying more of a product isn’t going to add to that
pot. Yet people continue to buy the soap in the mistaken belief
that they are supporting a charity.
“People would be better off buying the best value product and
giving the money they’ve saved to the charity directly,” she
said.
But one member of the debate audience took issue with this,
saying that purchasing a product linked to a cause was a way of
engaging members of the public who don’t normally give to charity.
The counterargument given was that these people may think they are
giving to charity, but if all the trees have already been planted,
or all the money raised, it amounts to a bit of con.
Martin Paul, ex-Cancer Council NSW Fundraising Director and now
working with Pareto Fundraising, reminded us that corporate
engagement is not always about the money.
“Corporates can also help us reach more people to spread our
message,” Paul said, giving the example of Cancer Council NSW’s
partnership with NAB to help 27,000 people access the LifeSmart
risk assessment tool, raising awareness of the connection between
cancer and lifestyle in the process.
“Charities can engage with corporates by the carrots or stick
method,” said Paul, and it was clear which method works better.
“Look at Greenpeace – they browbeat companies into doing better;
whereas an organisation like WWF works with companies to help them
with environmental audits, and improve their performance
collaboratively.”
Both Paul and Ho asked the question: why do we judge corporates
for advertising their commitment to a cause, when if someone does
something ‘good’ like giving blood, they get a sticker which they
display proudly, and are lauded for their efforts?
Maybe, countered John Burns from MSF, because it’s hypocritical
for corporations to try to be do-gooders – and for charities to
accept their money – unless they are above reproach when it comes
to their business dealings.
“We need to look at what these companies are doing, their
ethics,” he said. “We claim that taking their money is for the
greater good, but we need to take a good long look at what we are
doing and why.”
As the final speaker for the night, Burns had the last word. “In
the end, it’s not about coming up with a ‘win-win’ for charities
and corporates – it has to be about doing what’s best for our
beneficiaries.”
For further information on our masterclass and debate series,
please contact us on masterclass@paretofundraising.com
Expertise | Integrity
| Passion | 