Ethics in philanthropy: first take on the Grant Givers' Movement report
28 February 2022
A new report out today on ethics in philanthropy from the Grant-Givers Movement is a fascinating and valuable read and aligns with much of ACF’s own Stronger Foundations initiative, says our head of policy and practice Max Rutherford.
The Grant Givers' Movement (GGM) is an important voice in our sector, particularly given that it involves many staff who do not often get opportunities to be heard but whose insights and expertise is hugely valuable ― principally those working on the front-line of grant-making as grant officers and managers. They are more likely to have daily interactions with grantees and applicants than senior staff and trustees, and in many cases will be very locally connected and more directly immersed in the issues that face the communities their foundation serves.
GGM’s new report, on ethics in philanthropy, is based on the views of more than 160 people working within the foundation sector. It is encouraging to read that, despite their aspirations for change, ‘almost 70% of respondents stated that they felt proud ‘always’ or ‘most of the time’ of the organisation they are affiliated with.’
Much of the report’s content aligns with the spirit of ACF’s own member-led Stronger Foundations initiative. We are pleased that Stronger Foundations was named by respondents alongside many wonderful projects and movements as an example of promising or good practice in terms of ethical philanthropy.
This alignment is particularly true of the sections on mission and values, two words that feature throughout our ‘pillars of practice’ in the Stronger Foundations reports. It is good to read that ‘almost 80% of respondents stated that their organisation has a clear statement of values, or similar statement of principles, which guides all of its actions’ and that ‘several respondents also stated their organisation was currently developing this’.
Our members often share their view that taking account of a foundation’s history is an important consideration in terms of reflecting on the implications of both its past activities and the origins of its wealth. This is clearly a sentiment that is strongly felt among the staff and trustees who took part in the grant-givers movement research. 80% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that where organisations were found to have benefited from wealth created through harmful or exploitative practices, they should make reparations.
This is an issue we explored in our 2020 report on strategy and governance, in which we said:
“A stronger foundation takes account of its history, but is not beholden to it, and does not resist change simply on the basis of having always worked in a particular way. Some foundations can become stymied by uncertainty about what a long-since deceased founder may have wanted or how their wishes might be interpreted in a modern context. Some may have been established to pursue causes that are no longer considered necessary or relevant. There may be concerns expressed internally or externally about the source of a foundation’s money that have come to the surface due to shifts in social attitudes or changes to laws (see for example the literature around ‘decolonisation of philanthropy’).
A stronger foundation considers all of this in its strategic thinking, and also thinks deeply about its longer-term legacy:
• What does it want its lasting contribution to be?
• Has it considered the origins of its wealth and whether there is a need for healing or reparation?
• If the priorities of the past are no longer as relevant, how might it shift its focus to meet the needs of the present and future?”
The GGM report has a lot of important things to say about foundation transparency. We also know that transparency is an area that foundations are increasingly interested in, and keen to pursue and promote. Our report on transparency and engagement sets out the pillars of practice that we hope foundations will pursue.
Transparency is a specific issue that we highlight in our Stronger Foundations report on investment in which we urge foundations to ‘pursue transparency and respond to scrutiny’ in how it makes and manages its investment. As we said in our submission to last year’s Charity Commission consultation on charity investments, we agree that foundations should at a minimum seek to ‘do no harm’ with their investments, and be intentional in considering how to more closely align their investments with their charitable purposes and mission. The report found that ‘when asked if their organisation clearly and transparently sets out its approach to investments in either a strategy or policy document, 56% agreed’.
We note the GGM report’s finding of ‘only 41% of respondents believing their organisation has transparent Trustee recruitment practices’, and that ‘only 8% of respondents agreed that their organisation was doing enough to combat inequity’. This clearly shows that foundations have a long way to go to achieve the ambitious and effective practice we know many are striving for.
In our 2019 Stronger Foundations report on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), one of the nine ‘pillars of practice’ is that that a stronger foundation ‘expresses its DEI commitment, policies and practices publicly’. We suggested that foundations could pursue this pillar by:
• Creating and publishing a DEI statement, and developing clear and measurable outcomes to be pursued
• Undertaking an annual review of progress towards fulfilling its commitments and summarising this as part of its annual report
• Sharing its approach to DEI with wider audiences
Another pillar from the DEI report is that a stronger foundation ‘has a diverse trustee board and staff team, both in terms of demographics and experience’. This might be achieved by:
• Applying DEI practices to its approach to recruitment and retention, and monitoring and reviewing outcomes
• Regularly reviewing and seeking to enhance the diversity of its board and staff teams
• Continually striving to strengthen its governance, particularly in terms of diversity, and offering tailored support to trustees
We know from research due out next week from ACF that foundations are prioritising DEI in their own work, but they recognised these are areas where they have the furthest to travel. This is particularly true of trustee recruitment processes, which the GGM report highlights as an area where respondents feel their own foundations are furthest behind. We note the report’s finding that in their efforts to pursue better approaches to DEI, some foundations are ‘reliant on the emotional labour of staff from communities experiencing racial inequity’. This is something every organisation should seek to mitigate and avoid.
It is positive that ‘respondents felt fairly confident there are appropriate procedures in place to address misconduct within their organisation’ and we agree that all foundations should have complaints and whistleblowing policies that are clear and effective for those within and outside of the organisation.
We also agree that the flexibility and agility demonstrated by many foundations during the pandemic in terms of the way they interacted with grantees and applicants is a positive change that should wherever possible be retained and extended within our sector. These often modest tweaks to processes have been greatly appreciated by those seeking and receiving funding, and often enhanced the efficiency and impact of the foundation too. As we said in our Stronger Foundations report on funding practice, these sorts of process tweaks really are ‘where the rubber hits the road’.
This is a timely and important piece of research, and is recommended for all foundation staff and trustees, particularly those that are approaching a strategic review or making time to consider their foundation’s past, present and future.
You can find out more about Stronger Foundations and ACF’s policy work by visiting our website or by emailing [email protected].