Corporate Europe outstrips the US

Europe’s leading corporate foundations are giving more than their US counterparts and have a much greater international focus. As PiE’s first ranking of the top 25 biggest spending European and US corporate foundations reveals, European spending outstripped the United States by over €500 million: €1,611 million compared to the US total of €1,098 million according to the latest available figures. Europe’s corporate foundations are also much more open to giving beyond their national borders, with 56 per cent of the top 25 giving internationally, compared to 44 per cent of the US funders. In addition, whilst US international corporate giving tends to focus on disaster relief or support in local communities where the funding company operates, Europe’s corporate foundations have a much more structured programmatic approach to international giving. See the full ranking by subscribing to Philanthropy in Europe magazine.

Corporate philanthropy

“For a company to create added value, it must always place the primary focus on social values. However, this understanding can only be successful for the long term if a company’s social responsibility is implemented as an integral part of its business strategy. Only companies which are responsibly geared to social values can remain successful in the product market in the long term. Real acceptance of responsibility does not necessarily mean questioning the primacy of the political sphere, but rather working together for global stability. This common interest – the desire for general stability – is the key element in the foundations on which society, politics, and business are built. This is why the maxim driving the activities of global companies is not the transfer of power, but the transfer of stability. Together with partners in the public sector, companies make an important contribution to the struggle against violence, anarchy, and terrorism while at the same time advancing the causes of civilization, freedom, and prosperity."

The above isn't DaimlerChrysler's corporate manifesto but rather its introduction to its corporate investment policy. Interestingly the common maxim amongst so many companies of 'giving back to society' is tellingly absent. The US-German company confidently states its desire that its corporate giving contributes towards a global environment consummate to its main business activity - selling cars. But is this a problem? Do NGOs and community groups mind too much what the corporate philosophy is, as long as a company actually does something? Philanthropy in Europe has been researching the giving activities of Europe's top public companies which has been time-consuming and at times felt like wading through a mud of corporate-speak. The results are striking as much for the complete disparity between companies approach to corporate philanthropy, whether within the same business sector, country or size. A number of companies choose to establish foundations, perhaps the most accountable and visible way of giving, with some outstanding examples including Vodafone, with its network of no less than 19 country-based foundations plus its international Vodafone Group Foundation, and Deutsche Bank, with nine foundations covering world regions and giving interests. Others opt for a mix of group/foundation giving, a number of companies give to non-profits just directly, whilst a fair grouping of others opt for sponsorship-only support, unashamedly mixing giving with corporate interest. More to follow... or subscribe to Philanthropy in Europe...

.

The better of two evils?

So who would you prefer to rule the world? Bush and Blair or Gates and Buffett? Two 'democratically' elected individuals or the world's two richest who have made their fortunes through a different form of world domination, Microsoft-rule and corporate takeover. On the face of it, when Buffett announced his €30 billion donation to his friend's foundation at the end of June, the non-profit world welcomed his generosity which more than doubled the Gates Foundation's annual spending power. However, there are other issues which deserve attention. Foundations, even in the United States, are less accountable than government and despite Warren Buffet's confidence that he thinks "Bill and Melinda Gates will do a better job of managing the money than the federal government", it isn't necessarily that easy to separate philanthropy and government. Bush's proposed budget for 2007 revealed cuts to the administration's small schools programme, citing funds available from the very same Gates Foundation for precisely this end. And the precedent had already been set. In 2006 the White House sought to end programmes educating children about the dangers of obesity citing funds available from Disney and Nickelodeon for the same purpose. Even that isn't the whole picture. For as some have said, just as Microsoft has sought and fairly successfully achieved world software domaination, could the foundation's size have the same impact, effectively gagging potential critics in the non-profit world fearful of losing the foundation's support?

Irish government advertises for funding

So now governments have been forced to fundraise to support infrastructure projects. Apparently the Irish government is to formally advertise for charitable donations of €5 million to support 'flagship projects'. At issue though is the lack of large-scale philanthropy in the Irish Republic. Ordinary individuals might be generous, but the country's richest, with a few notable exceptions, are known across Europe for their relative failure to give back. Big companies too are at fault. Maybe the government's appeal is less a call for funds and more an attempt to flag up the urgent need for Irish business to contribute something back to society.