The Beacon Collaborative HomepageThe Beacon Collaborative

Beacon Blog

NPC announces merger with the Beacon Collaborative to strengthen UK philanthropy

by

  • Following successful completion of their initial five-year programme, the Beacon Collaborative will continue their mission as part of NPC.
  • Beacon’s Philanthropy and Impact Forum and market measurement research   to continue.

Today NPC and The Beacon Collaborative have announced a merger consolidating their activities to increase the amount and effectiveness of philanthropy in the UK.

The merger follows the completion of Beacon’s initial five-year programme to catalyse growth in philanthropy in the UK in partnership with leading sector bodies.

The Beacon Collaborative was established in 2019 by philanthropists Cath Dovey CBE and Matthew Bowcock CBE. NPC was established twenty-two years ago to help grow philanthropy by helping philanthropists understand the impact of their giving.

Coming together under the NPC brand, they will continue to focus on growing, promoting and celebrating philanthropy in the context of the UK’s expanding impact sector.

NPC Chief Executive Jonathan Simmons said:

Since launching over 20 years ago NPC has supported hundreds of philanthropists as they strive to maximise the impact of their giving.

We’re excited to be bringing Beacon’s incredible convening and advocacy power together with NPC’s deep knowledge of the UK impact sector.

Together we can focus on helping strengthen the UK’s vibrant and growing impact community.

Cath Dovey CBE said:

Since 2019, Beacon has been successful in drawing together organisations that support, promote, and celebrate philanthropy.

Through collaborative working we have achieved our mission to put the work of the UK’s philanthropy sector on the map for philanthropists, policymakers, and the wider impact community.

Our sector has a clear plan to drive growth in philanthropy and giving. I am delighted to be working with NPC to build the capacity and capability to turn that plan into action.

Funders Collaborative Hub: A platform for donor collaboration

by

Throughout Covid, we saw extraordinary levels of philanthropy collaboration, enabling amazing things to happen. Inspired by this – and seeking to build upon it – the Association of Charitable Foundations has established the Funders Collaborative Hub (FCH). Jim Cooke, Head of FCH, elaborates for us…

What is the Funders Collaborative Hub?

Funders Collaborative Hub helps funders achieve more together. It’s free, and open to anyone who gives funding to make the world a better place, whether as an individual philanthropist or through a grant-making organisation.

Visit the Hub

Why was the Hub created?

As funders rose to the challenges brought about by the pandemic, many of them saw the benefits of increased connection and collaboration.

More awareness of each other’s activities enabled them to avoid duplication and identify gaps, while working together to simplify grant processes helped reduce administrative burdens for charities seeking funds.

Looking beyond Covid, funders increasingly recognise that to tackle big, complex issues, such as the climate emergency, collective action can be more effective than lots of disconnected smaller-scale activities.

Many are also keen to work together to improve their own practices as funders – from how they invest their capital to how they become more equitable and inclusive.

The Funders Collaborative Hub was designed to encourage all funders to consider how collaboration might benefit their philanthropic missions – and to offer information, inspiration and tools to help them pursue these benefits in practice.

funders collaborative hub banner
The Funders Collaborative Hub currently features more than 80 collaboration opportunities.

How does the Hub work?

The Hub allows funders to share and find information about collaboration opportunities. We currently have more than 80 opportunities listed on our website and more are being added every month.

Many of these are established collaborations that are open to new funders getting involved, or have learning to share. There are also some emerging opportunities, with funders inviting their peers to explore potential new areas of collaboration.

Explore live opportunities

Success stories

The Hub also features a collection of collaboration case studies, sharing funders’ successes, challenges and learning.

These range from the Match Trading Task Force, which brings together funders who are innovating to support social enterprises, to the Just Foundations Initiative, a group of foundation leaders working to advance racial justice in their organisations.

Stories like these provide lots of ideas and inspiration for funders who want to maximise the benefits of collaboration. We’ve also distilled the learning from all the funders we’ve worked with, into a set of practical tools for developing and stewarding successful collaborations.

How do donors get involved?

  • Visit the Hub to explore collaboration opportunities, which can be filtered by issue or location to find those most relevant to your interests as a donor.
  • Join the mailing list to keep up-to-date with new collaboration opportunities as they are added, via our monthly newsletter.
  • Share your story about an existing collaboration you’re involved in, or an emerging opportunity that you’d like to add via our ‘Share What You’re Working On’ form.
  • For other enquiries, drop us a line at funderhub@acf.org.uk

Elite philanthropy – academic study vs real world practice

by

giving by the super-rich

Elite Philanthropy – academic study vs real world practice

A response to “Giving by the super-rich could be perpetuating social inequality, academics conclude”

On March 2021, Stephen Delahunty published an article in Third Sector entitled ‘Giving by the super-rich could be perpetuating social inequality, academic conclude.‘ The article is based on new research published by academics from the University of Bath School of Management and Newcastle University Business School.  

The study – Elite Philanthropy in the United States and the United Kingdom in the New Age of Inequalities – is based on a literature review of 263 studies, from Carnegie in 1889 to the present day, and focuses on multi-millionaire and billionaire philanthropy. It concludes elite philanthropy has received insufficient academic attention and more quantitative and qualitative research is required to understand the interplay between entrepreneurship, wealth and philanthropy. We would support this.

The study is an important and comprehensive literature review. However, the exclusive reliance on academic sources, which the authors acknowledge does not provide a thorough explanation of the dynamics we observe in philanthropy, means the analysis lacks the context of real-world practice. It infers motive from academic observation; it includes no direct analysis of the actions of philanthropists; and, it fails to take account of the role played by non-academics in the philanthropy sector who work to promote best practice considering ethics, power and accountability.

In this article, we seek to address the principal misconceptions that have been drawn out from the paper in Stephen Delahunty’s article. You can find other articles on this theme here, by Paul Vallely, and here, by Dr Beth Breeze.

Read the original study

The article begins by asserting that “large-scale giving by the super-rich has done almost nothing to redistribute wealth from rich to poor”. This statement makes a fundamental assumption that it is the intention of philanthropists to redistribute wealth. Philanthropy reflects the personal desire of individuals to contribute to positive social or environmental outcomes. Wealth redistribution is a matter for economic policy.

Similarly, the article asserts that “giving by wealthy individuals [has] helped to preserve social inequalities.” Once again, this suggests philanthropy has both the mandate and the capacity to upend social inequality. While it is true that some experienced philanthropists work towards systemic transformations, the majority of giving is focused on alleviating suffering and needs that are the result of pre-existing social inequalities.

It goes on “giving by the super-wealthy had failed to significantly benefit poor countries in the developing world.” Not only does this statement again assume philanthropists have the capacity to enable transformative economic development in poor countries – even where governments have failed to do so – it also fails to acknowledge the enormous challenges involved in giving money to non-profits in developing countries, as Beacon highlighted in research published last month. As a consequence, philanthropists who wish to contribute to international aid and development often do so via multinational NGOs, and the methodology of the research will not take account of such practical challenges.

Despite these failures, the article says “considerable dividends [are paid] to donors in the form of privilege and influence in society and politics” with “the super-rich able to pursue personal and political agendas through major charitable foundations”.

Firstly, assuming that the motives of philanthropists are not altruistic (which the study does as a central premise), there are regulations in place in the UK designed specifically to check such transgressions of power. All charitable foundations in the UK, even those funded by the super-rich, are bound by Charity Commission regulations, which require campaigning activity to be aligned with the foundation’s purpose and, in turn, must serve the public benefit. Secondly, there are rules governing party political campaigns, with strict limits on how much candidates and parties can spend. These rules are specifically designed to impede the capacity to “buy” political influence in the UK by philanthropic or any other means.

The ultimate expression of the disproportionate “social and cultural capital” received by philanthropists, the article suggests, is in the form of UK honours. On this point, it is worth noting that in the New Year’s Honours List only 4 of the 1,239 honours were given explicitly for philanthropy. One presumes the other 1,235 honourees were “amassing … social and cultural capital” in different walks of life.

Next the article argues that efforts to reform tax incentives, such as the cap on tax relief for donations, failed because “because philanthropists … almost universally opposed any changes to the system”.

Here, it is important to note that tax incentives are offered to encourage more giving for the benefit of civil society, not for the benefit of philanthropists. The majority of the tax relief goes to the charity in the form of GiftAid. Furthermore, the campaign against the tax cap on charitable donations in 2012 was, in fact, spearheaded by NCVO, not by philanthropists, on the basis that it would choke the flow of money to civil society.

We would suggest there is an alternative narrative that urgently needs academic examination, which is that financial success itself creates social privilege and political influence. In the act of becoming a philanthropist a wealthy individual acknowledges this privilege. When practiced well, philanthropists consciously defer this power to the causes and individuals they support and through this act of deference can challenge the status quo.

While there may be several zeros on the cheque, philanthropy is not a major economic force with the power to right social wrongs. Rather, it is a reagent within a wider system with the role to agitate and activate the messy process of positive social change.

The Philanthropy Paradox – what is the relationship between philanthropy and philanthropists?

by

Prism, the Gift Fund, recently launched The Philanthropy Paradox, a research report based on the attitudes to philanthropy among the British public. The paradox at the heart of the report is that 84% believe that giving makes things better for people and society, but only 69% think philanthropists are good for society. Among those on low incomes, this figure falls to 53%.

Put simply, the report suggests philanthropists are not held in particularly high esteem, especially among those who are most likely to have come into contact with their work.

This paradox raises some interesting challenges and questions. Firstly, it speaks to how we judge those who voluntarily give up their private wealth for the benefit of wider society.

We know from our own research among 1,300 wealthy individuals last year that only 39% describe their giving as philanthropy, preferring the term “charitable giving”.  More worryingly, one-third said the fear of judgement from family and friends was likely to stop them from making a major gift. This figure rises to almost half among those under the age of 40.

Giving – especially making large gifts – says a lot about the kind of person you are, the values you hold and what issues in the world matter to you. If wealthy people worry about the views of those closest to them, the negative judgement of wider society will undoubtedly exacerbate their fears.

This matters because if we fail to give active encouragement and support to those taking their first steps toward major giving, then it is the charitable sector that loses most. Negative judgements choke philanthropy, stopping individuals making the step from regular giving to major support.

The second challenge is more nuanced and speaks to the complex relationship between philanthropy and philanthropists.

In recent years, philanthropy has become the subject both of academic study and of media scrutiny. Academics focus on the lessons that can be learnt, practices that can be improved and impact that can be measured. Meanwhile the media focuses on individual accountability, analysing the motives and means of philanthropists to ensure society gets a fairer deal for all.

The work of both groups is essential in a well-governed society, but it also presupposes that individual philanthropists are taking part in a team sport with well-established rules of engagement.

In reality, philanthropy has a heritage spanning continents, cultures and millennia. Its rules are a matter of ethics: an evolving debate about how the practice of philanthropy can benefit wider society.

While important, this debate is distant from an individual’s desire to give. Indeed, many experienced donors baulk at the term “philanthropist” because their gifts reflect their unique circumstances, interests and passions making it a solo contribution, more than a societal act. The label also puts an unhelpful barrier between them and the charitable organisations and people with whom they work.

The distinction between philanthropy and philanthropists is indeed a paradox, and, as with all paradoxes, it points to a deeper truth. If the wider British public lacks confidence in philanthropists it is because the word marks them out as distinct from the society they seek to serve. Experienced donors, themselves, also fear this heterogeneity.

Yet to increase philanthropy, we need also to increase the number of philanthropists. That is, individuals who seek to deepen their engagement in society through giving money, time and their skills and networks. In this endeavour, actions will be more important than words.

Philanthropists must root their work in the communities they support. In parallel, society must recognise it will gain more by treating those who give thoughtfully in service of a better society with greater nuance and care.

There is a better outcome for all if we critique the practices of philanthropy and not those who practise it.

Environmental philanthropy: Maintaining focus through a crisis

by

Environmental philanthropy: Maintaining focus through a crisis

environmental funders network

The world has 6 months to avert a climate crisis according to Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA are urging governments to put green policies at the heart of the post-pandemic recovery plans: philanthropists have a critical role to play in supporting this.

When thinking about the humanitarian disaster wreaked by COVID-19, environmental issues have been somewhat eclipsed, despite the myriad ways in which the pandemic and the degradation of the environment are connected. To take just a couple such connections: our destruction of habitat globally and the illegal wildlife trade directly contribute to the rise of zoonotic diseases like COVID, as species are crammed into more and more crowded spaces and people come into more contact with them; and air pollution has been shown not only to make people more vulnerable to the worst effects of COVID but to help spread it.

Philanthropists who have been contributing to the global environmental effort for a number of years have been forced to examine where their priorities lie given the humanitarian crisis unfolding around them. For many, this has led to a recommitment to the cause they care most about, as the pandemic has only served to reinforce their belief that a healthy environment underpins everything.

Many of these committed philanthropists are members of the Environmental Funders Network, a UK-based network of foundations, family offices and individual donors supporting environmental causes. Their aim is to increase the amount of financial support for environmental causes and to improve its overall effectiveness through collaboration and sharing.

Their members agree that it is more important now than ever to protect and conserve the environment, and that our emergence from the COVID-19 crisis gives a unique opportunity to put the environment and our health at the centre of bail-out and economic stimulus negotiations.

Over 40 foundations have signed the UK Funder Commitment on Climate Change facilitated by the Association of Charitable Foundations (ACF). It is based on the recognition that climate change poses a serious risk to the pursuit of the charitable aims of all foundations, whatever their mission and field of expertise. Signatories commit to six pledges, which enable them to play a part in addressing the causes of climate change and supporting adaptation to its effects.

The commitment states that “Climate change is a health issue, an equality issue, an educational issue, an economic issue, a cultural issue, a scientific issue, a security issue and a local community issue, as well as an environmental issue. There is a special responsibility on foundations, whose assets are held for the public good, to use their resources and independence to rise to the challenge.”

ACF acknowledge that this pledge is the first step for action and not the end goal, but a collaboration is necessary to work towards common goals.

There are many strands of environmental action and they are all needed together for a fairer and more sustainable future. With the same passion at heart, members of the Environmental Funders Network and others tackle the issues from different angles.

Trained as a lawyer Bianca Pitt harnessed her own legal expertise in herphilanthropy. Funding environmental causes for over eight years with her husband, one of their focuses has been not-for-profit environmental law firm ClientEarth. Engaging with ClientEarth as a funder and as a member of the Development Board for the last six years, Bianca believes:

“There are three challenges that we need to tackle today: global heating and climate change, loss of biodiversity (plants and animals), and finally the problem of pollution and waste. While they are all interlinked, they are in certain ways distinct.”

Convinced that education is key and that the business community was critical to change Bianca and her husband James also endowed the first Chair for Environmental Sustainability at INSEAD, the leading international business school.

“Only a healthy planet can provide a base for healthy people, and, as a result, a healthy economy. Funding work for the protection of the environment is ultimately an investment into public health and a well-functioning economy. We hope that this becomes clearer with this Covid crisis. We are seeking to increase our funding to the environmental sector as a r

esult, to increase resilience in this respect and secure a sustainable future for our children,” she says.

Antoinette Vermilye, co-founder of the Gallifrey Foundation, has focussed her environmental efforts on mitigating continued destruction of the marine ecosystem. She sees that diversion of funds (especially government funds) to other needs perceived to be more immediate coupled with lockdown measures have put a halt to marine conservation and clean-up activities. Some ocean conservation efforts have been put back years. For instance, last month a Marine Protected Area in the Dominican Republic was decimated by only five fishermen who swooped in the moment scientists and rangers were in lockdown. Ten years’ worth of work rebuilding a delicate ecosystem vanished overnight.

The ocean covers nearly four fifths of the planet but it has received under 1% of philanthropic funding since 2009. Expecting that marine funding will shrink further in the post-COVID recovery phase, the Gallifrey Foundation, as venture philanthropists, is focusing on identifying opportunities for assisting marine conservation organisations. This includes, for example, helping to identify greater areas of synergy by streamlining their existing operations, or aligning with others for more efficiency and effectiveness of resources.

Investing for the future, Antoinette is also actively exploring ways to create clearer paths for young environmentalists to enter the workforce by identifying the most effective areas in the next few years (environmental law, and financial and insurance institutions, for example) as well as identifying new types of job creation in non-traditional areas that may emerge post-COVID.

Julia Davies, founder of We Have the POWER, is also a passionate environmentalist and supporter of many environmental causes. She worries about environmental charities losing fundraising revenue from events cancelled due to lockdown – potentially another chain in the emerging environmental catastrophe.

“Just when we need our environmental and conservation groups to achieve the most, they are struggling to cover their core costs,” she says.

One of the many organisations Julia supports is Greenpeace. She feels that it is vital that green groups cooperate in calling for a green stimulus and that Greenpeace is the best organisation to lead this call. Greenpeace and other organisations, including business groups and unions, are collaborating to call for a green stimulus response. Such a response would tackle the climate and ecological crises alongside the pandemic, and push for a just transition for those losing jobs in high-carbon declining industries by providing good quality, well-paid jobs that help conserve the environment and care for the community.

Julia is also supporting the development of new funding mechanisms for nature restoration. A recent donation to The Wildlife Trusts is helping them to establish new structures to enable investors big and small to lend money to fund exciting programmes to bring about nature’s recovery at the scale and pace needed to bring our UK wildlife back and effect a green recovery.

Julie Hoegh is another supporter of ClientEarth and a member of the Development Board.

“What appealed the most was ClientEarth’s creative, imaginative ways of using the law to protect the environment, their tangible results and collaborative approach, seeking to help governments and companies improve their environmental record. I have never looked back,” she says.

Taking the positives (cleaner skies for now) and negatives (the potential effects of air pollution on Covid patients), Julie thinks “there’s still an enormous amount of work to be done and the battle is far from won. The need to convert more minds and channel more money into environmentalcauses is acute.”

She advocates for a long-term view and puts her money where her mouth is with her philanthropy in the form of both capital and time.

A staunch supporter of the Environmental Funders Network, Devika Waney Mokhtarzadeh is a trustee of Savitri Waney Charitable Trust. Traditionally funding sight treatments and clean drinking water in India, Savitri also believes that environmental causes underpin all of their developmental work.

“Our family had a wakeup moment that human health depends on a healthy environment for us to live in and share with all living beings and that the moment to act is now. I hope more philanthropists who are interested in health open their eyes to this fact and put their efforts, energies and money into the environmental sector,” says Devika.

How can philanthropists help the environmental sector?

While all of these philanthropists tackle the climate emergency in slightly different ways, there are common themes that point to a vision for the environmental sector post-COVID:

  • Environmental issues underpin everything that is going on in the world and must be tackled immediately to support all other social causes
  • The next generation must be empowered to work and earn money in environmentally-friendly jobs
  • The environment will only be saved by collaboration between the not-for-profit, private and public sectors acting together
  • We cannot afford to lose the gains we have made already to this pandemic
  • Funding is on the critical path and more is needed
  • The time is now – the recovery from Covid must encompass green policy and practices, and ensure natural environments are protected to minimise the risk of another pandemic spreading from animals to humans in the future

For funders interested in this area, these experienced philanthropists recommend:

  • Understand the environmental impact of your work and philanthropy
  • Fund environmentally-friendly initiatives
  • Ensure grantees have an environmental policy in place
  • Talk about the issues in your circles
  • Collaborate with environmental experts to ensure philanthropic activities are environmentally sustainable
  • Sign the ACF Funder Commitment on Climate Change and enact its principles
  • Join networks of experienced funders to access insights into effective giving, such as the Environmental Funders Network

While governments have a huge role to play in green policy making, philanthropists also have a crucial part to play in a greener future, and now is the time to act.