Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

I last asked, “Will the West let Asia rise?”  I was playing off a comment from Hans Rosling’s TED presentation – and was applying a similar notion to philanthropy and social innovation.

Writing for Alliance, Olga Alexeeva turned my thesis around in her article “The Gucci bag of New Philanthropy” to ask:

What if philanthropic tradition is set in the stone of centuries and only supports the status quo, and tradition is simply a justification for not changing anything, and not challenging current practices and approaches?  Her perspective examines that Western philanthropy has actually created a set of ethics that have not yet been discussed among the new donors of the non-West.  Not having examined these ethics or what ethics should exist, philanthropy remains tied to cultural norms that may contradict the act of giving.

It is normal practice to strike your servants in the morning or evict farmers from your land with laughable compensation, and then in the afternoon sign cheques to charities helping the poor.  It is absolutely acceptable to build a chemical plant in the delta of a life-saving river and the next day make an inspirational speech about global warming at an international conference.

Alexeeva’s example of these contradictions are not limited to the East and South, as she describes – and the example had me asking, does Western philanthropy have a set of ethics?  Not a set of practices around giving or tools on how to give better, but an actual set of ethics?

At one point in time, I found myself in the arguement that if you’ve made money through rotten business practices then giving it away would do nothing to absolve you.  Most recently, I’ve realized that setting aside the judgement has been more conducive to doing better work with the money available.  And more realistic.

Still in a conversation around ethics, we would need to ask ourselves where our philanthropic dollars come from – and if there is a better way to do business to accrue them?  Ethics may not be a topic that most folks would likely take on – when their concern is more often on when the next dollar will arrive?

It should not deter us from braving the conversation, but we must be careful to assume that we’ve progressed so-far ethically ahead of others – when really, we haven’t even scratched the surface.

Pin It on Pinterest

Revisit consent button
Close
Dr. Michele Fugiel Gartner, CAP