SPEAKER_00 0:37

Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I'm your host, as ever, Rod Davis, and this week we have a conversation, and it's with Charles Keedan. Charles is the editor of Alliance Magazine, which is a global publication dealing with issues around philanthropy and civil society that's been going based in the UK for more than twenty five years now. And Charles and I sat down a few weeks ago now to have a chat all about what's going on in philanthropy at the moment, and particularly about the question of journalistic reporting on philanthropy, the relationship between philanthropy and the media, and kind of why it's important for there to be scrutiny of philanthropy and why what sort of form that scrutiny should take. So we had a good wide-ranging conversation. We talked about why it's important to have journalists focusing on philanthropy, whether that needs to be in sort of specialist philanthropy journalism outlets, or whether there are ways of bringing that to a sort of more mainstream news audience and how to do that. We talked about whether, when focusing on philanthropy specifically, there was a danger that often the coverage is too focused on the UK and the US or the global north, and whether there are ways of rebalancing that. We talked about the idea of philanthropy actually providing a source of funding for news media outlets at a time when obviously many of them are finding it difficult to remain sustainable, and what sort of new challenges that might bring in terms of undermining editorial independence or the self-censorship of editors who have philanthropic funding. We talked about what some of the key trends in philanthropy that we should be watching or keeping an eye out for at the moment. We talked about climate change in particular and whether climate's now seen by philanthropists and philanthropic funders as something that needs to concern them regardless of what their charitable mission is. We talked about whether growing scrutiny of where well philanthropic wealth has come from is a good thing and what we should make about some of the debates over tainted donations, which obviously we discussed in the last episode of the podcast. We talked about whether it's a challenge at times to get kind of nuanced or balanced discussion about philanthropy issues when the environment for debate is increasingly polarized. And we talked particularly about a recent article published in Alliance, an opinion piece that was sort of pushing back on the idea of trust-based philanthropy, and it caused a bit of a furrore with people sort of taking issue with the article. And so we talked a bit about Charles' view on whether it was sort of right to publish that article in the first place and what they'd kind of learned in the process of kind of dealing with some of that pushback. So without further ado, let's go into the conversation. I will be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping and tidying up. Okay, great. I'm here with Charles Keedan. Hi, Charles.

SPEAKER_01 3:48

Hi, Rodri.

SPEAKER_00 3:49

Uh and Charles, for anyone listening who doesn't know, is the editor of Alliance magazine, um, which is uh a magazine that's online and in print, which covers philanthropy issues and civil society society issues from a sort of global perspective. And I'm sure Charles will be able to say a lot more about that now. Um, maybe the best place to start, Charles, is just for you to kind of say a bit about you know what Alliance is and what it does and how you ended up there and in this slightly odd world of philanthropy.

SPEAKER_01 4:17

Yeah, well, maybe I'll take that second point first about how I got into philanthropy in the first place. And I think it was part accident and part maybe design or pre-design, who knows? Um, but uh I just graduated from university. I was working in parliament for a member of parliament, um, but I happened to have ties with the Pérez family. My late father had worked for several generations in the family, and there was an opportunity to help in the family business, which I took with open arms. Um, but after a year of working in the business, uh it became clear that it was more social issues rather than business issues that were really my passion. And I just happened to be fortunate that um Trevor Pérez, one of the members of the Pez family, had a similar um interest as well. And the two of us got together um and I was able to work alongside him as the first employee of what became the Pears Foundation, um, and build what is you know a an important foundation committed to effective philanthropy to this day. So um, and I stayed there for almost a decade. I left at the end of 2012. Um, so yeah, that was how I how I got into it. Um, after uh uh uh my my period directing the Pairs Foundation, I went on sabbatical to Stanford, where I was co-teaching a course on philanthropy, civil society, and nonprofits and conducting some research on how philanthropy education and the teaching of philanthropy developed. And then um in 2015, the opportunity came up to um uh take over the reins at Alliance magazine. And you're asking, you know, what Alliance is and does, and I hope it'll be familiar to many of your listeners. But um essentially we are a uh seek to be a critical friend to philanthropy worldwide, covering what happens in philanthropy around the world, news, trends, developments, be a space for a real community of practitioners and um philanthropists and others uh to share news and perspectives um with many people writing their own contributions, as well as the development of our own editorial voice and agenda. And we have several platforms, including a quarterly print magazine, uh weekly, longer form Alliance Extra, and daily um news blogs and opinions. So um, and I've been doing that now for five or six years, um, executive editor of Alliance, and it really has been an interesting journey from foundation director or recovering foundation professional to philanthropy editor.

SPEAKER_00 6:40

Yeah, I know I wanted to ask about that because it's uh I mean I guess it's an unusual journey in a way. I mean, partly because there's there's only a small world, well, of philanthropy full stop, but certainly of kind of philanthropy uh journalism. Um, have you found that transition from I don't know whether from poacher to gamekeeper is the right terminology, but from being a practitioner to somebody who's sort of standing slightly outside and reporting on philanthropy, have you found that odd at all? And what what are the kind of key things you think you've learned in making that transition?

SPEAKER_01 7:08

Yeah, um it was certainly a challenge in the early days, um, partly because I'd gone from working in a foundation where uh resources were more abundant than scarce, to a non-profit where resources are more scarce and abundant, and just trying to get my head around why it was that or how it was that I have to manage um some of those pressures of scarcity in the alliance context, particularly after a transition from uh founding editor or almost founding editor who'd been there for 16 or 17 years and had done so much for the development of the philanthropy media field, and that's Caroline Hartnell, my my predecessor. I think another challenge was that I think I brought both strengths, but also there are things I had to learn. I think my strength was that I came from within the foundation world and working for a philanthropist. So I had a sense of uh what philanthropy looked like from the inside and had inside experiences that I could draw on. Um but I think some of the things I really had to learn were uh about taking a more global view of philanthropy. Alliance is very much a publication that's trying to look at philanthropy globally, uh, whereas uh my experience was from the UK and to an extent the US world. I also think there's an element of just the very basic elements of the media and the media skills that I've had to develop and learn over time, putting a magazine together, developing our production and editorial processes, getting uh training and learning skills and techniques on the job, um, uh so that we could develop as a media publication as well as a non-profit one. But it's been a it's been an amazing journey and the real privilege at alliance, which I didn't have when I was at the Pears Foundation, is being able to really ask questions of the field, um, ask anything I want to whoever I want, um, and to help to contribute to the debates that are happening and raging in the philanthropy world now, holding up a mirror to the field, trying to improve the field through the way that debates or helping debates be ventilated, which ultimately we hope would improve both the effectiveness and accountability of the field that we're rooted in as a publication.

SPEAKER_00 9:13

Yeah, absolutely. And and just to sort of zoom out a bit and think about you know what the the role of uh an outlet like Alliance is in the kind of wider field of journalism about philanthropy, um, you know, from your point of view, why is it important that we have specific journalism that is sort of grounded in the world of philanthropy and focusing on it? And how does that relate to how philanthropy is represented and understood in the wider media? I mean, do you see yourselves playing a role in kind of trying to help the the wider public or commentators understand philanthropy a bit better?

SPEAKER_01 9:51

I think increasingly so. Um, certainly we are a conduit for for conversations within the global philanthropy sector, and our readership has drawn across that. And I think that is at the root of what we do and what we do well when we have built up trust over many years and have a track record of telling that story. But I think philanthropy matters not just to the sector, it matters to society as well. And if philanthropy matters, then it follows that the philanthropy journalism matters and the media that covers philanthropy matters, uh, which is why we might come onto this. It's striking that typically it's been being underinvested in. Um, but I do think we do have a responsibility to provide that, if you like, intermediary bridging role, uh, and also be a destination for people outside of our field from different sectors, from different parts of society, for insight on and understanding of philanthropy. I think we we are um seeing an increasing need for that um as the discussions of philanthropy increase. Sometimes they increase in their kind of controversy, um, and we need to be able to provide a uh informed, nuanced context for those conversations.

SPEAKER_00 11:02

Yeah, absolutely. Um, and just pick up on something else you said there, because I think you know this is something I've noticed, I mean, always with Alliance, but certainly under your tenure, I think it's been it's been very apparent, is making sure that as a uh a news outlet it has a kind of global view of of philanthropy. I mean, do you think where there is coverage of philanthropy, too often it is focused on the global north and particularly on the US and the UK? And that perhaps gives a kind of skewed view of the balance of what philanthropy looks like as a whole and what the the key issues are.

SPEAKER_01 11:37

I think that is correct. Um, there's a lot to be said for the coverage of the global north, uh philanthropy in the global north, inadvertent commas, because obviously global north and south are terms that even our readers, I think on a recent webinar were saying were you know outdated and didn't really capture today's realities. But that being said, uh those debates are important. They some of the critiques that are emerging there are important, but there's no doubt that uh one is only seeing a part of the picture if one is only focused on on the US and UK and even Western Europe. Um but why I think it's worth asking why is that? And I think there is a statistic that's often cited from WINGS, a global umbrella organization looking at philanthropy infrastructure, that 80% of philanthropy infrastructure is concentrated in the US. So not even in Europe, in the US. And it follows that if there's that level of concentration in philanthropy infrastructure there, that's also reflected in philanthropy communications infrastructure. So if you look at where philanthropy media is most developed, it is in the US as well. It's also very well, sorry, it's not very well funded, it's better funded than elsewhere in the US. I'm sure some of the outlets there would say that they need and deserve more funding. Um, and I think that's right and fair. But I do think it's that very unevenness in the investments in the field that also reflected in how the field then is represented externally. Um, so I do think you know we see ourselves an alliance as a bridge between what's happening in the north and and beyond that. Uh, and there's a real need, I think, for more investment in that communications infrastructure because that ultimately helps provide the platform to tell the story of philanthropy.

SPEAKER_00 13:21

Yeah, absolutely. And and I guess in terms of that story, it's I mean, it certainly seems as though the that skewing towards the the global north or whatever, you know, the kind of the best terminology for to get that idea across might be is partly to do with where the funding is that can sort of drive it on the supply side. But I suppose I wonder whether there's also an element of demand in terms of you know, it the what gets reported on is driven by what people at least think they want to read. Do you think there is a sort of slight issue in that people need to be kind of educated about? I mean, the sounds maybe a bit paternalistic, but that actually you know the audience kind of feels as though they want stories about a certain model of philanthropy that is a kind of US-UK one, and that actually getting people to think about philanthropy in those wider terms and to want to read that is in itself something of a challenge.

SPEAKER_01 14:13

I think there's there's some truth in that. But what I would say is that um, you know, the model of philanthropy in the US or UK might indeed be replicated in other parts of the world where philanthropy is emerging. Um, there's sometimes a suggestion that you contrast kind of top-down elite philanthropy in the US with more bottom-up horizontal forms of philanthropy in the south. But actually, you know, you you might see the well, we are seeing the emergence of billionaires across the global south that might adopt what some would see as the virtues and others the vices of philanthropy in the north. And therefore, it's important to be paying attention to developments there. And in terms of readership, I mean, I think I've observed, particularly during my tenure at Alliance, uh what I would call the emergence of a more self-conscious global philanthropy sector, with infrastructure bodies emerging in different parts of the world, um, the uh academic ecosystems there, um, appetite amongst readers in those countries. I think sometimes um what we see is hard to reach audiences might just be some of the shortcomings on our side in terms of our ability to reach them. So, uh an important milestone for Alliance in terms of thinking about this as we think about our own strategic development as an organization is to further globalize our coverage. So we've recently recruited regional representatives who are working across different regions of the world to increase our access to network sources and insights so that we can tell uh to our readers a bit more about what's happening in those places and also provide that kind of natural feedback loop. And I think we've got some way to go there. And I would say that our endeavor is to shift from a publication with a global orientation to being truly global in our kind of outlook and scope. And you know, that's something that I think is is happening. Um uh and I encourage others to be doing having you know similar conversations as us.

SPEAKER_00 16:06

And and sort of, I mean, potentially beyond the scope of what Alliance itself would ever aim to do, but thinking about reporting on philanthropy in the broadest sense, there are a few, there's sort of a handful of examples, I guess, almost entirely in the US, of more sort of mainstream publications and news outlets that have at least one person that has philanthropy as some or all of their beat, as it were. And I mean, I've had um Teddy Schleifer from Puck on on the podcast before, but there's also now people like David Farenthold at the New York Times kind of reporting on the non-profit sector, although some people might say with a slight slight proof to be slightly sort of negative about it. But how much mileage do you think there is in that? You know, what is there more mileage in potentially getting a mainstream audience to pay attention to issues around philanthropy and civil society, or is it always going to be something of a niche interest?

SPEAKER_01 17:00

Well, I think it can be both. Um, I think there's always going to be a space for a specialist media that is focused with greater levels of nuance on the kinds of conversations that maybe some of your listeners and our readers would be interested in. But I also think there's you know wider public interest because philanthropy matters. And Teddy would I've heard him argue on your show that it matters because what the wealthy do matters, and a large part of philanthropy, not all by any means, but is is um the philanthropy of the the wealthiest, the elite philanthropy, um is one way that wealthy people might exercise influence in society for good or ill. And therefore, it's welcome and encouraging to see um mainstream national titles and others um developing their own reporting on the subject. And I think that just reflects the importance of the space that we're in and the influence that philanthropy can ultimately have. But I think with that does come the need for scrutiny and for uh the sector itself to be able to hold itself to account and to be willing to improve. Um, and that's it is interesting to see where you know some of those debates are taking place today, whether it's on how foundations spend their resources, how effectively they spend it, whether foundations and philanthropists are really giving enough relative to their own wealth, um uh questions about diversity in the sector, uh, transparency or a lack of it, I think, uh, and ultimately the legitimacy of philanthropy. Um, so I think the stakes are high for our field. Um uh, but it's interesting to see how reform-minded organizations and individuals in the field are um certainly making their voices heard, maybe more so than when I directed a foundation a decade or so ago.

SPEAKER_00 18:45

Yeah, I'd certainly agree. I think that you know what you were saying there about there being more of a sense of self-awareness and and perhaps self-reflection within philanthropy, particularly sort of institutional philanthropy, it does feel like there's been something of a of a sea change on that front. And I definitely I want to come on in a moment and sort of talk about some of those those trends that you you mentioned briefly there. Um, I just wanted to touch on on something you kind of mentioned already, which is about how journalism about philanthropy gets funded. Um, I mean, obviously there's a much wider question about how journalism full stop gets funded, and there are many debates in the the sort of journalism industry about how you make news media sustainable, particularly in light of sort of declining advertising revenue and that kind of thing. From your point of view, well, I guess it's a two-part question. You know, what's the most desirable or the kind of ideal model for funding this stuff? And do you think there is a a particular challenge around reliance on philanthropic funding when we're what we're talking about is journalism that to some extent is supposed to be scrutinizing philanthropy?

SPEAKER_01 19:49

I I think there is a real challenge on the latter point, and I think it's a risk for editors of philanthropy journalism that is also funded by philanthropy, uh, not so much to censor or be censored or as to self-censor.

SPEAKER_00 20:02

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 20:03

Um, particularly when you're when when you're covering the people that might be providing you with funding. Uh, and I think absolute editorial independence is is is probably um a myth. Um, I don't think editorial independence is anywhere is absolute. There's always um uh influences and forces that do shape one's thinking, one's biases, one's unconscious biases, views of advertisers, uh supporters, boards. Um, they're always going to be influences that are going to shape editorial agendas. But I think those questions can be offset or at least um balanced by having good editorial um guidelines and standards, acting responsibly and ethically, um uh questioning one's own judgment as well as one might. Um but it also on the funding side, and this really gets, I think, or tries to respond to your question, or how can you um scrutinize and critique philanthropy if you're also funded by it, I think it really underscores, particularly on a non-profit model of philanthropy journalism, having either core funding of philanthropy publications um or an endowment for the philanthropy media, a point that I've been making um for a while, because I think both core funding and endowment or endowment funding, type funding, really creates um the space um to resist any influence that might be um exercised or the feeling that it might be exercised, particularly if the funding is longer term or can be drawn on in drawn on independent of any individual funder. Um but I think it's a delicate balancing act for titles like Alliance because we are our trust is really derived from the rootedness that we have in the sector. It's where we have many of our sources and insights and relationships. We're also a platform for many, many practitioners. But I think most of them welcome the fact that we also are there to hold up a mirror to the field and be a critical friend. The field. And I think you and your listeners can judge how well we do that. Some might say we're too critical, and others that we're not critical enough. But also you're asking about the ideal mix of funding. And we as a registered charity and nonprofit have a mix which comes from subscribers, sponsors, and also advertisers, and particularly our digital advertising is in a healthier state than it has been for a long time. And that provides us with channels of income as do events. So I think philanthropic funding is part of that mix and will continue to be so. And we haven't had any situations that I can think of where funders have told us or tried to tell us what we couldn't couldn't publish or shouldn't shouldn't publish or have threatened to withdraw their funding. But I think I'd be dishonest if I said that those considerations never crossed my mind when I was thinking about what I what I was what I was going to do or how I was going to exercise editorial judgments. I think one would have to be superhuman, not to have those in one's mind. I think one has to just make them explicit, think them through, and then think about how best to approach whatever story one is beginning to tell.

SPEAKER_00 23:15

Yeah, and I guess from from that perspective, it's a sort of special case of a wider issue around power dynamics within uh the world of philanthropy and grant making. And as you say, it's not necessarily there's a certain sort of caricature that there are uh donors or grantmakers out there that are trying to kind of impose an agenda through their funding, but actually it's it's often nowhere near as explicit to that and it is about sort of self-censorship and people uh being kind of concerned about what they do or what they say and how that might affect existing or future funding. And I guess that goes for grantees of all kinds, not just uh journalism outlets.

SPEAKER_01 23:52

Yeah, yeah, I agree. And it's also about funder motivations. Like we're looking for funders that are motivated, or the funders we do have with Fortunate, um, with funders like the Mott Foundation and Oak Foundation and others that are coming, and they their their, I think their support for Alliance is motivated by a commitment to growing the infrastructure of the field and supporting the the principle of philanthropy communications and underlying a commitment that aligns with our own mission to foster peer exchange. And I think it's though that kind of backing that is so welcome because it's a signal to the field that the field itself matters, um, rather than any direct. Uh we do it's interesting to think about that compared to the kinds of funded journalism of some national outlets where the donor will fund just certain topics or themes and then be associated with that. And I think that is possible, but I think it gives rise to more potential conflicts than a kind of funding that is more, as you say, a kind of longer, or as I was saying rather, uh core core funding, a commitment over a longer period of time to a principle underlying what we do.

SPEAKER_00 24:58

Yeah, I know I absolutely agree on that. And I think there is a fundamental distinction between using the funding of news media or journalism as a tool to further an existing charitable mission that that is cause specific and funding it because it is an inherent public good, because it's part of you know an ecosystem of infrastructure or you know part of the sort of health of democracy. And I and I think you're right, it's the funding on the latter basis, which is absolutely key to making sure that the those funding relationships have the proper power dynamics within them.

SPEAKER_01 25:32

Um yeah, and it's a really yeah, it's a real responsibility um and requires a degree of trust um and for us to maintain that trust in everything we do and the way we conduct ourselves and and and the approaches we take. And it's not not ever something I can take for granted as editor of the publication because I know it can be lost, um, if it's not, if we don't continue to do our job well.

SPEAKER_00 25:54

Absolutely. Um and just just moving on a bit to um you touched on it a little uh a little bit before, but just in terms of you know the actual kind of issues that you're you're dealing with at the moment and covering in Alliance. I mean, we we both sort of agreed that it feels as though it's a time when there is a far greater amount of self-reflection in the world of philanthropy. And I think there is there are all kinds of interesting debates out there and lots of critical analysis and defenses against that critical analysis. Just from your point of view, kind of what do you think are the the key trends or most interesting things going on in the world of philanthropy at the moment that you're trying to make sure you're covering?

SPEAKER_01 26:33

Where to start? I mean, I agree. It's a big very interesting moment for philanthropy. It feels like it's such a dynamic field uh in a state of flux and evolution, um, but against the backdrop of growing wealth inequality. So maybe I should start there that you know, in the 25 years an alliance has been published as our anniversary, 25th anniversary last year, I think wealth inequality has increased massively. And we know that um it also increased during the recent pandemic. And I think it's against that backdrop that questions about philanthropy or at least elite philanthropy are growing, about the extent to which elites are contributing sufficiently to society um in general, as well as through their philanthropy. So I think one big issue here is about uh debates that are happening in uh adjacent to philanthropy about wealth taxes, particularly in the US. Um, and there's a very interesting, but still I would say, uh minority pursuit amongst philanthropists that philanthropists are actually calling for a wealth tax um uh alongside their philanthropy. It seems like a kind of rather counterintuitive but remarkable piece of progressive philanthropy to be a millionaire or a billionaire saying that as part of my philanthropy, I want to invest in calls and advocacy for taxes on wealth because it's grown out of all proportion to the reality of the economy and how people at the bottom end of the economic spectrum are suffering. Um, and doesn't seem right that this there should be so much wealth. And people might wonder well, well, why not just give that back voluntarily? But I do think there's a serious point here about the arrangements of our political economy, and I think well-placed, wealthy individuals acting as philanthropists can really help to make that case to policymakers. And we're seeing that in the US. Um, and I wonder how and whether that will take off elsewhere. Um, but coming to a bit more of a mainstream kind of inside sector question, I think there's big debates about the extent to which philanthropy reflects what you might say as the elites rather than the streets, and the extent to which those that issue can be addressed through the diversification of foundations in general, and foundations in particular, and philanthropy in general, through who is on the makeup, who who's on the governing boards of foundations, the makeup of senior leadership teams and foundations, and so on. And that kind of coincides with debates around, I would say, shifting power in philanthropy, trust in in in kind of non-profit groups, and agenda around decolonizing philanthropy. And these words and these groups and movements can sometimes overlap and be a bit interchangeable. But I do think there is a critique of power, economic, social, political power, that is being leveled at philanthropy. But many, or at least some people, maybe not many people in the sector, embracing that critique and then using it to call for change within our own field.

SPEAKER_00 29:28

And and on that, I want to pick up on quite a few things there. But do you do you find that, you know, because I I find a lot of this critique extremely helpful and you know, absolutely at the very least, it's worth engaging with. And I think people who immediately sort of within the philanthropy world who get defensive and don't want to engage with it are kind of missing a trick because I don't think it helps anybody not to do that. But do you think as some of that critique has become more widespread and certainly as it's moved into the mainstream, do you feel there's any danger that it it tips over into polemic? And actually, in in the minds of a of a wider public, it it goes from there is a critique of philanthropy that's relatively nuanced to, and they all they actually hear is, well, philanthropy is bad. Um, and and do you find it's kind of a challenge to move from what are often critiques grounded in quite reasonable concerns about things like power and inequality and the role of philanthropy within a democracy to engage with those, but not allow it to slip into polemic or sort of simple black and white representations of the issues?

SPEAKER_01 30:31

Yeah, I do hear that concern. Um, and I remember it um being a kind of concern when in the days when I worked in foundations, how to encourage wealthier people to give, how to promote giving, um, how to avoid the fear that if a philanthropist sticks their head above the parapet, they'll be knocked down and that will depress giving. And yeah, I understand where that's coming from. I'm obviously in a different place now where part of our job is both um, as I was saying earlier, to both tell the story of philanthropy but also to you know foster that accountability. And I think there are things that philanthropy and people in the philanthropy sector can do to improve the social license to operate, if you like, for philanthropy in the UK and improve that social contract. Um, and I think our rather than being defending oneself against critiques that may or may not be there, and in some cases they are there, in some cases they can be very fair. Um, I think one could think about what measures one might adopt. Um, and I just have a few just kind of to uh just off the top of my head. One would be about payouts for foundations in certain countries. Um, uh there are mandatory payouts requirements um for foundations to spend certain proportions of their assets. Um be interesting to see whether you know, say the UK philanthropy sector and other sectors across Europe would be willing to embrace consideration of that or resist it on the basis that it impedes donor independence. Um I think there's uh questions about you know tax benefits for philanthropy that also um raise questions about how philanthropy is structured and where money is spent. And again, I think there's you know some critiques uh there. Um, and of course, about the diversification of philanthropy. So um so yeah, I understand where those concerns are coming from, but I would say I'm encouraged by certain groups of people, whether it's the Beacon Collaborative in the UK or right up to Mackenzie Scott in the US, that are really beginning to uh who has who's make Scott talking about racial justice, for example, really raising harder questions. Um, and then one other issue we haven't talked about yet climate change. And you know, there's big questions now about how foundations use their endowments um to uh complement their missions, particularly when they're trying to combat climate change. And there's been recent rulings in the UK courts on that. And I think there's a long way to go.

SPEAKER_00 32:59

Yeah, absolutely. I think I mean climate change is a really interesting one, I feel, for the sector as a whole, because it really puts this question of the occasional sort of tension between donor freedom or putting a focus on the liberty of the individual or the individual organization to choose, because you know, philanthropy is inherently a kind of voluntary act to some extent, and the other side where you are trying to uh impose requirements on philanthropy because you have you either have uh demands of justice or of equity or of trying to address the climate crisis. And it feels as though that balance is sort of shifted or is shifting a lot at the moment from one where I think people would acknowledge that the climate crisis was important, but they would still go, well, it's up to the individual, you know, philanthropist or foundation to decide what to do with their assets and how to invest them, to one where the mood within the sector and the wider public maybe is starting to shift a bit more to, you know, you've got to have a pretty good reason not to be taking climate concerns into account. And, you know, personally, I would probably go further and say, you know, I I think all foundations or you know, endowed organizations should now be, if not required, then, you know, in a legal sense, then in a moral sense, to take climate considerations into account across all of their activities, not just their grant making, but their investments and their hiring practices and their operations. Um, do you know do you do you get a sense that that the mood within the sector and maybe public opinion is starting to shift on that climate issue?

SPEAKER_01 34:30

I I think so. Um though, of course, there's you know concerns that some in wider society about the economic impact of climate measures, um, uh concerns around energy security, particularly in the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine context, which might slow down some of the uh efforts to uh for to embrace uh carbon-free developments. Um so I think it's not exactly um clear what will happen. But I think speaking of the philanthropy sector, certainly in more progressive philanthropy circles, there's much greater awareness than I remember a decade ago, and that kind of I guess tracks wider public concern around climate. Um, but I think one has to also be careful about not speaking within a bubble or a bubble within a bubble. And there are, I'm sure, a large number of foundations that are not considering those issues and are investing in a more conventional way, and that would mean investing in fossil fuels in order to maximize their returns, and fossil fuels um you know might still are still profitable, um, particularly as um prices go up um and uh money is being made from them. So those investments still remain lucrative. So I do think one has to consider uh any of the trade-offs when one's considering how you kind of realize your mission, charitable mission. But it is good to see more philanthropies taking note of this.

SPEAKER_00 35:59

Absolutely. And then, you know, I I I could quite happily spend the next uh hour talking about climate concerns and philanthropy, because it's definitely a topic for an entire podcast in its own right. Um, but as are many of the other issues that we've sort of touched touched upon. Um, another one I just wanted to ask you about, because it feels like it is a kind of recurring theme for many, many years, and but at the moment feels as though it's recurring much more often, is around scrutiny of where philanthropic wealth has come from. Not necessarily in a systemic sense of you know, uh the system as a whole being unequal, but specific instances of philanthropic wealth. Um, and obviously there are well-known examples like the Sacklers and all the sort of furrore that has surrounded them, given their, you know, their involvement in the opioid crisis in the US. But there are many other examples that we see cropping up, you know, around higher education funding. There was a story I was just reading yesterday where questions are being raised about um the donations of Leonard Blavatnik, once again, um given his ties to other kind of Russian oligarchs. Um it feels as though this, you know, the this question of scrutinizing philanthropic wealth is becoming much more mainstream, perhaps as people have you know the ability to find where some of that wealth is coming from and make those links. Um, do you do you think it's kind of that's a a positive development? And do you think it's kind of in philanthropy's best interests to be honest about these things and not to pretend that you can separate how wealth is made from trying to do good through through giving it away?

SPEAKER_01 37:30

I think so. I mean, I know there's attempts made to separate or suggest there's a category error, whereas when one is criticizing philanthropy, they're actually criticizing the source of wealth. But I do think it is hard uh and maybe not legitimate to disentangle them. And you know, you've mentioned cases such as uh scrutiny of the SACLAS, um, you mentioned Glavatnik, there's a number of Russian philanthropists who are also oligarchs who have now been sanctioned by the EU, the UK, and US. And their funding really um uh supports large amounts of um the UK, US, uh, European charitable sectors over over time. And I do think there is a concern that I would have in uh looking at these developments, whereby you have a more professionalized philanthropy sector represented by Umbrella bodies, trying to encourage their member foundations to do the right thing, to act ethically, to think about their investments, to uh uh adopt best practice when it comes to grant making. And then you have this kind of tier of elite individuals and families and wealth, some of which is refracted through their charitable foundations, some of which is just direct donations to a kind of multiplicity of charitable causes. And then those causes and those donations and those individuals are subjected to scrutiny, rightly, in the case of the Russian oligarchs for their associations with Putin and with Sackler. I've just been watching the episodes of Dopsik, the um documentary about the Sackler family, of which their philanthropy comes up right at the start, and we talk about it explicitly, and uh and you see this the names of the family, you know, adorning the museums to whom they've given money too. And I think, do I think that's welcome? I think scrutiny of elites who are exercising power is welcome. And I know the argument is sometimes made well, why should there be more scrutiny on the wealthy that do give than the wealthy that don't give? And I think that is fair to a point, but actually I think it's about the actions of the wealthy themselves, whether the vehicle is through business interests and business influence or exercising influence through who they employ or their influence on government, but also through their philanthropy. And philanthropy is an important domain, um, uh increasingly important domain, not the exclusive domain through which influence can be exercised. And I think with it will inevitably come scrutiny. I think what philanthropy sectors can do is be trying to improve and promote standards of best practice and to be thinking harder about these questions, including around the sources, sources of wealth. So I think is it a good or bad thing? I think it's inevitable, I think it should be embraced. Um, and I think we at Alliance, amongst others, have got a role to play in analysing it and covering it.

SPEAKER_00 40:17

Absolutely. And it strikes me one, I mean, one of the things leads us on to another question I wanted to ask, which is you know, one of the things that makes that scrutiny possible is some level of transparency about where money comes from, where you know, where it goes within the philanthropy world. And often, you know, philanthropy, anyone who's been in the world for any length of time will come to realise is not overburdened with transparency in lots of ways, whether that's individual philanthropy or institutional. You know, do you find that a challenge in your work, the lack of transparency around philanthropy? And what more do you think that philanthropists and foundations could and should be doing around making their work more open and transparent?

SPEAKER_01 40:57

Yeah, and I mean it should be said that foundations are a more transparent form of philanthropy than other forms are going to be, because there are some basic required legal requirements whether um uh than there might be for donor-advised funds or simple individual major giving. But you're absolutely right. I mean, I think the issue of transparency is actually multi-sided. It's not just transparency on the donor side, it's also on the recipient side. Um, you mentioned higher education institutions um or big, and I was mentioning big kind of um art or museum institutions. I think they've been very reticent about revealing the details of some of the donations from these donors, say, in relation to the Blabatnik School of Government, Oxford University, perhaps could be asked to be more forthcoming about the nature of the gift agreements there. In the case of the Imperial War Museum, I think there was a report in The Guardian about the funding from um Abramovich for one of the, I think, one of the galleries, maybe it's a Holocaust gallery, we'd have to double check that. But um, they said that the gift agreement was confidential and therefore they wouldn't be revealing it. And I wonder whether that is a satisfactory response. Um, I think institutions that are in receipt of these funding um should be publishing or be willing to publish gift agreements and correspondence relating to how gifts are structured, um, so that there is more transparency in the donor fundee or donor grantee relationship. And I think that might do go some way to uh reassuring the public uh about how um donations are given and received. I know the response from some fundraisers would be that this could depress giving. It might mean that funders that would otherwise be generous would not give in the ways that they are. And my question to them would be: well, is that a price that is worth paid? A smaller, charitable sector with less giving, but a better managed, more ethical one. And I would argue that maybe we haven't got the balance right and therein is and a correction is overdue, and that actually that might be the price we have to pay for uh uh a more ethical uh sector, and ultimately I think a better one, a more effective one, and maybe a larger one, but maybe not. But you know, uh, you know, if there's more analysis of charitable gifts and more analysis of the way those gifts are made, with more mindfulness about how effective the giving is and um various considerations about it, that would be a really good thing, I think, for our field and beyond.

SPEAKER_00 43:32

Yeah, no, I I I agree. And I think um I mean, I think apart from the point, uh, you know, the arg the pragmatic argument about it potentially kind of uh reducing donations because it scares off other other donors. I suppose there is uh and always has been a difference of opinion about whether it's whether you should reject gifts that are ethically tainted out of hand, or whether actually there's an a sort of pragmatic argument for accepting them and putting the money towards good uses. But I think it's impossible to make any sort of uh judgment about whether the right decision has been taken without knowing on what terms the gift has been made. And that's where your point about transparency comes in, I think.

SPEAKER_01 44:12

Exactly. Exactly. Because one might end up taking money that is from a problematic source, but with an explicit understanding about the terms in which you're going to do so and why. And maybe without indulging the donor with their name being adorned on buildings where names are now having to be taken off buildings, or with an expectation that those donors will have access to the heads of those institutions because of the money that they've given. And I think that is a challenge directly to that model of major donor fundraising where elites and elite groups do interact with each other, whether it's royal groups and royal philanthropy or or or or philanthropy of other kinds of artistic or or um cultural elites in in different countries. And I think that is where there is a maybe a legitimate critique of philanthropy because it does seem to sometimes replicate the very hierarchies in society that certain people on the progressive end of the spectrum might say need to be challenged. So maybe philanthropy is playing a role through the way that philanthropic deals are struck in reinforcing rather than challenging those hierarchies and sometimes the problematic or arguably corrupt practices that can exist. By no means all and I think it's very important not to generalize either about types of foundations or about or types of philanthropy. Not all elite philanthropy is like that by any means but there is increasing evidence and signs of a significant proportion that has been like that. And we will we have covered it and we will continue to cover it because we think there's public interest in doing so.

SPEAKER_00 45:49

Absolutely yeah no I totally agree and I and I guess on that that point about you know replicating existing hierarchies or unequal power structures I suppose that's where a lot of the interest in uh kind of power shifting within philanthropy and finding models of philanthropy that are that allow or or or kind of enable power to be meaningfully moved as well as just financial resources is is so relevant. And I know this is something you kind of cover a lot in in Alliance because it's kind of big big topic of debate at the moment. I wanted to ask particularly um I think related to that about um you know you had an article that you you you published I think a kind of guest blog recently um about trust-based philanthropy so the sort of idea that we can shift power by um by funders taking more of a kind of trust based approach and funding core costs and not adding strings to their funding and it was sort of slightly challenging that and saying you know actually you know maybe maybe we've got this you know the kind of the wrong way around and this this you know blew up into something of a you know what cut passes for a sort of Ferrore in the the relatively small philanthropy world.

SPEAKER_01 46:53

You know what after the dust settled that what was your kind of take on on that in terms of the debate that it generated yeah I mean there was certainly a bulging uh digital um mailbag after the piece it was by Simon Summer the co-chief executive of the Jakobs Foundation who was arguing that trust-based philanthropy or the orthodoxy of trust based philanthropy needed to be challenged um uh and we published multiple responses um from some very um uh uh in some cases angry readers um angry either with the author for suggesting that trust-based philanthropy um uh should be ditched or challenged uh also from uh about two odds alliance for publishing it in the first place but I would say that I think we play an important role in trying to ventilate debate and this was an article that came from um uh a senior member of the European foundation sector working on in one of Europe's leading foundations with a particular view albeit a challenging and provocative one um that did uh offer a different view to the one that's typically heard in progressive circles around trust-based philanthropy so don't make any apologies for for publishing I think it was important to do so and for ventilating the debates but um it was also important for us to be able to share different points of view and to be a platform for those points of view to be uh different points of view to be to be aired um in order to improve the sector and uh we you know do that quite a lot the sometimes uh uh debates can emit more heat than light and uh perhaps in this case was a bit more of that and uh there might have been things that we could do to in future to refine how we construct and structure debates um uh but overall I think the conversation is welcome. Um I personally would have sympathy with advocates of trust-based philanthropy that want to see power shifted but I also wonder whether it is uh the developments or the extent to which this is a widely shared view have been slightly overstated partly because of I guess people like myself and others in the media that are seeing you know Mackenzie Scott's philanthropy talking about um unrestricted funding which I I appreciate is only a part and not the whole part of trust based philanthropy but there has been more conversation about it and about shifting power.

SPEAKER_00 49:17

I just wonder whether that debate is overblown and the piece was a corrective to that and that's why it generated such strong reaction yeah absolutely and I I think um I think on the on that front um there's definitely a danger that as with a lot of trends within philanthropy that the rhetoric kind of outstrips the reality and I think it's it's important yeah to to kind of have a corrective to that and certainly from you know uh from that point of view I think having uh other points of view that sort of you know challenge when people get slightly carried away with that you know this is the new orthodoxy the only way of doing things um I think is important. I suppose it's just then uh people kind of feeling if if it goes from a a corrective to something saying that that something like trust-based philanthropy is actively wrong and that we should stop doing it. I guess that's where it starts to get people uh feeling um slightly more heated but it was it I thought it was an interesting example of just the challenges of getting debate within the sector because actually as you say it's kind of I mean from my point of view I thought yeah no of course you should publish it it's a different viewpoint and that's fine. I mean I'm not scared of people having different points of view about philanthropy and I didn't happen to agree with that one. But I thought you know in seeing some of that reaction I think some of it people you know did exactly what they should do which is have a different point of view and and explain why and sort of you know take apart the arguments as they saw them. But I think there were also people you know as you say who take offense at the very idea that somebody could have a different point of view to them. And that is a challenge I think.

SPEAKER_01 50:48

Yeah here's the thing I think we at Alliance need to be and I think the sector in general needs to be good at asking questions both of the field and of ourselves. So you know we are very happy to receive you know critiques uh and feedback we always welcome it and I think it's about sometimes not knowing the answers but being willing to ask the questions which can lead you to interesting places. And here's the thing about this particular piece that in addition to it being written by a Leo, a major European foundation, we were hearing um off record sometimes in the kind of briefings similar views being articulated by others who are also foundations. And it made us think that maybe there's an unspoken view that isn't really being fully articulated within the world of institutional foundations that is feeling its nose as being put slightly out of joint by the McKenzie Scots of this world and the style of philanthropy they're adopting that there's some degree of free riding on the expertise of others in order for individuals like her to be able to make these more committed gifts. And maybe that is part of the pushback from the world of institutional philanthropy um without everyone necessarily subscribing to every um argument that was made in the original piece which as I say was maybe more polemical but a sympathy with that that we were hearing and I think that also informed our thinking about why it was important to publish it.

SPEAKER_00 52:11

Yeah absolutely I'm aware I'm in danger of taking altogether too much of your time Charles so I'm I just before I I let you go I just wanted to ask um finally and we've covered lots of of topics there in terms of uh things that you there have been in alliance and the kind of important trends that are out there what to your mind are we are we not paying enough attention to yet what do you think is the kind of the the stories and the trends that that we need to be thinking about more over the coming years oh again um so interesting um and thinking about if I had a crystal ball um where I'd I cast my gaze um I think the developments in philanthropy are not just going to be context specific but um will not be just conceptually specific but context specific and I think part of that context will be geographic where you are geographically might or influence what developments there are in philanthropy and I mentioned earlier how I think development of philanthropy in emerging economies and countries um where wealth is growing exponentially will lead to maybe some of the debates about wealth inequality and power elite social power that we've we've seen here and more in the in the US and UK for example I think areas where I would like to see philanthropy being put and this isn't the same as answering the question of where I think philanthropy is going but maybe I can you'll indulge me liberty to do that I would love uh to see um more philanthropy engage with the debates around mutual aid I like to see more philanthropy thinking about using law for progressive social change like to see more investments in local media as uh as we've said media is being disrupted by you know digital developments and and and other factors that have changed the face of the media but I think there's great things that philanthropy could do there.

SPEAKER_01 53:55

And then on personal level one hill that I would guess I'd like to die on maybe would be votes for 16 year olds. I think many of the reasons that young people have been excluded from issues that affect them and have been really badly impacted in recent years in the UK context from Brexit from COVID um from climate change ultimately is that the younger people have not been enfranchised. And I think that extending the franchise to 16 year olds could be an amazing thing an amazing philanthropic cause seems to be one at least in the UK context where all the opposition political parties agreed but there's really been no political will or momentum to turn that agreement of having votes for 16 year olds into political reality but I do think it's one of those niche but significant issues that could really change uh change things. I like to also see some of those social change philanthropists um and the more progressive philanthropists really thinking about why it is we have a hereditary monarchy um sitting on the apex of a class system and why you know there's not more philanthropy scrutinizing that um uh rather than just accepting honours from from from royals. I do think there's this question about democratic change in in our society. So um those would be two political issues um um that um I think would intersect with philanthropy those are just a few um uh interests of mine to to to leave you with and I'd say that all of those are outside of the alliance context and just kind of personal reflections on on where where where things are.

SPEAKER_00 55:27

Yeah I mean a fascinating set of issues and many of which I think raise I mean particularly raise really interesting questions about that that occasionally artificial grey area between philanthropy and politics. And I do wonder actually I mean and we've got time to go into it today but whether another one of those future trends or battlegrounds for philanthropy is whether those lines will become increasingly blurred and the the sort of distinctions that we feel need to be in place between philanthropy and civil society and the political sphere will start to look less and less relevant or people will start to kind of test those boundaries more. Before I finally do let you go, Charles, I just want to give you a chance to I'll put links in the show notes obviously to where people can find alliance and some uh some of the articles and things that we've been talking about.

SPEAKER_01 56:09

But do you have anything particular kind of coming up that you want to uh flag up or alert people to well um our June issues uh about to um come out very shortly probably around the time of this recording and that's looking at learning from failure so we'll have that very self-critical tone that we were uh talking about earlier and in September we're going to be looking at some of the debates around the decolonisation of philanthropy and uh what critics are saying philanthropy should be doing more of how philanthropy is responding to some of those debates so that's coming up and also an uh investigation to um major wrongdoing um that we have uh working we're we're working on in in the field um that we'll be reporting on soon so stay tuned for for that coming hopefully um to the pages of Lions soon.

SPEAKER_00 56:54

Intriguing oh well it just remains to say thanks ever so much for finding the time to come on the podcast it's been great to to chat and I'm sure at some point in the future I will be bothering you to to come back on again and pick up on some of these issues.

SPEAKER_01 57:06

Thank you. It's been a pleasure Rodri and thank you for everything you're doing to um uh make sure that we have a healthy and vibrant philanthropy sector through your podcast and other initiatives I know you're involved in great thanks Charles okay great well my thanks again to Charles for coming on the podcast great to have a chance to chat um as ever I'll put links in the show notes to some of the things we discussed and where you can find more from Charles and from me.

SPEAKER_00 57:40

In particular I know towards the end of the podcast uh Charles mentioned that they had uh an investigation coming up of which he couldn't say more at that point um that has now been published and actually was in both Alliance but also in the the mainstream press and the Sunday Times so I'll put links to where you can find more detail on that story concerning um cash donations to uh Prince Charles's foundation in fact which again sort of ties into Charles's point about scrutiny of the royals um if you want uh to find uh more stuff on civil society and philanthropy why not follow me on Twitter at Rodri underscore h underscore davis or at philiteracy um if you have ideas for things that we could talk about on the podcast or you'd like to check out some of our back issues uh go to the philanthropisms.com website where you can find all of those back issues and also an email address where you can drop us a line and give us any thoughts and suggestions on people I could talk to or topics we could uh discuss in detail. Other than that just like subscribe tell all your friends about the podcast and I'll see you next time. It should be said at this point that we're going to take a short break for the summer so we will be back in the autumn with lots more deep dive explorations and conversations with fascinating people from the world of philanthropy and civil society around the globe so stay tuned for that