Announcement:
Monday, February 12, 2007 • Noon to 2:00 p.m.
Hudson Institute • Betsy and Walter Stern Conference Center • 1015 15th Street, NW • Suite 600Several weeks ago, the Los Angeles Times published a two-part series on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, suggesting that the effects of some of its corporate investments are at direct odds with its grantmaking. This raises a question that has long roiled the philanthropy world: should foundations practice "social investing," by screening their investments to insure they’re aligned with their missions? No, argued American Enterprise Institute Adjunct Fellow JON ENTINE in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial: "The dark secret of 'social investing' is that it is neither art nor science: It's image and impulse. It reflects perceptions, not performance."
On the contrary, blogger and foundation adviser LUCY BERNHOLZ insists: "What Entine calls image, impulse and perceptions, I call values. If you are going to invest in public companies - which it's safe to say Foundations are going to do - thinking through how they align with your values, where they compromise, where you compromise for portfolio balance, etc. - is appropriate." ALLISON FINE, Demos Senior Fellow and author of Momentum: Igniting Social Change in the Connected Age, agrees with Bernholz: "Given the Foundation’s resources and ability to hire anyone from anywhere with the necessary expertise to review their investments, it is mind boggling to believe that finding socially conscious companies to invest in - to at least avoid companies that are specifically and actively counteracting their grantmaking efforts, would be too difficult or distracting for them." (For more, click here to visit Allison Fine's blog, A. Fine Blog.)
The issue of the Gates Foundation's view of social investing is thus well-joined, and on Monday, February 12, Hudson Institute's Bradley Center will pursue it further in a panel discussion with the above-named authors and scholars: American Enterprise Institute Adjunct Fellow JON ENTINE, LUCY BERNHOLZ of Philanthropy 2173, and Demos Senior Fellow ALLISON FINE. The Bradley Center's WILLIAM SCHAMBRA will moderate the discussion. Lunch will be served. Please join us!
It is exciting to see the convergence of online discussion and face to face convenings. Congrats to Lucy and Allison on their recognition as thought leaders in this important discussion. As a suggestion to Bill Schambra, you might check out Tactical Philanthropy for a view of social investing that is practical, rather than political, from Sean Stannard-Stockton, a professional money manager.
Yes, congratulations to them, it is indeed an honor to be leading these discussions. I hope the views that you have expressed that foundations should go beyond directing their investments to established organizations and industries based on their performance on measures that represent the foundation's values, and make strategic investments in emerging organizations and domain leaders that most directly further those values.
Alternative media is one area that you have mentioned, and I would drive down towards assets that can help shape the policy debate on media, digital access (or as my friend frames is, digital excellence) and democracy. If we had competitors to Diebold and other players in the election systems field that actually implemented systems that protect the vote rather than make elections easier to steal, or who could help communities access new radio licenses, that might go a long way towards advancing the kind of Civil Society that preserves our democracy for true progressives and conservatives alike.
Posted by: Gerry | February 04, 2007 at 03:19 AM
Yes, getting these thoughts up and out so they are visible and audible in the buzz of the philanthropy discussion is critical. Socially responsible investing, social ventures, all of that tends to come down to ideas that are shockingly shallow. Screen out bad companies. Get engaged as a volunteer and busybody board member where you "invest" charitable dollars. Start a business make a bundle and convince yourself that in so doing your are promoting social good. On the other hand, treating a foundation as venture capital fund for program related investments in start ups, or in organizations that have made it past startup but not to scale, that would be truly game changing. Imagine a joint venture between Ford or Pew and, say, Jan Hauser on Augmented Social Networks. "Open space philanthropy" has become another buzz phrase, but behind it is more business as usual. Many of the familiar pieces, loosely joined by new jargon. Top down still does not see bottom up. Even Omidyar who has the vision has done so little to realize it, maybe because his libeatarian market based analogies owe too much to a quick reading of Adam Smith and too little to Gandhi or Martin Luther King or Havel, or for that matter Bill Drayton, on creating social networks driven not just by profit but by ideals. People work hard for money and kill for it, but willingly die for their own ideals.
Posted by: Phil | February 04, 2007 at 09:31 AM