Philanthropy and "social investment"
by Peter Mac Certain business leaders have long advocated the return of part of their profits to worthy causes. There are many reasons for this. In a few of them a social conscience still smoulders, and may in certain circumstances still be aroused, as exemplified in Dickens' memorable depiction of Ebenezer Scrooge. Such contributions have other benefits — for the company. For example certain taxation benefits and the cultivation of a more positive public image. This was certainly the case with Standard Oil of New Jersey, who early last century gained an appalling reputation generated by the deaths of hundreds of striking workers and their families at the hands of company thugs. The second generation of the Rockefeller family set about rectifying this "regrettable" situation with the creation of public parks and buildings, and it certainly did their business no harm at all. However, the direction of philanthropic endeavours is undergoing a sea change. The director of Swinburne University's new course in "philanthropology" (we kid you not) explained that he preferred the term "social investment" to "philanthropy" because it more accurately reflects the mutual benefit enjoyed by both the community and the corporate world. "Social investment means companies are being called upon to invest in the health of their company by it being involved in the community. It improves its license to operate. It improves its public profile, its customer acceptance, and the commitment of the workforce to the company", he said. The Guardian (No 1111, October 2, 2002) commented on the outcome of corporate involvement in the community, by way of the sinister private/public partnerships, which threaten to wreak fiscal havoc in Britain in coming years. They are being introduced by state and federal governments in Australia. Note also the heavy emphasis in this quotation on the financial benefits accruing to the company from "social investment". However, in case you thought that benefits to the community are not adequately stressed, it is worth noting trends in the US, where the corporate sector is moving to take over the role of government in social welfare. Some US corporations in the US have established foundations in which the companies fund the running of charitable organisations, which in turn solicit money from the general public for the support of the nation's poor. Mind you, the US has never been noted for the largesse of its support for the poor. However, it is likely that such government services as do exist will gradually be replaced by corporate largesse. From there it's just a small step back to the Dickensian world of workhouses and cap-in-hand charity. And in case you think the same thing couldn't happen in Australia, think again. As one commentator noted recently: "... there is a growing scepticism about the ability of the state to meet the needs of the non- profit (welfare) sector, as evidenced by John Howard's call for businesses to bolster welfare and arts budgets." The process of handing over the provision of social services to the corporate sector is well under way in Australia. Needless to say, it is unlikely that businesses will start to contribute to really worthy causes, such as the Guardian Press Fund. If they did we'd have even more cause for worry.