SPEAKER_00 0:12

You're listening to the Philanthropist podcast with Rodney Davis. 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 I'm in conversation with Patricia Illingworth, who has just written a new book called Giving Now: Accelerating Human Rights for All. Now, Patricia is an author, philosopher, and lawyer who has worked on issues around uh philanthropy for a number of years now. Um, she's currently professor of philosophy and business at Northeastern University, and she was previously a fellow at Harvard Law School, uh, Harvard Medical School, and most recently a senior fellow at the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at the Harvard uh Kennedy School for Government. Um, and the focus of Patricia's book is on how we can apply a human rights framework to some of the big questions around philanthropy. So we had a really interesting conversation. Um we talked obviously a lot about the book, and we talked about what it means to apply some of the principles of human rights as outlined by the United Nations to some of the questions about the role philanthropy plays and how we go about practicing philanthropy. Um, we talked about some pretty kind of fundamental questions, like the one of whether in an idealized world we would actually have philanthropy at all, or whether if the needs of justice were met through taxation in the state, there would be no need for philanthropy. Um we talked about whether the idea uh that philanthropy might be a matter of duty and rights rather than than choice uh and a sort of voluntary thing, whether that applies to all philanthropy, or whether there is some philanthropy that we can do above and beyond that it is voluntary, and what the sort of balance between those things might be. Um we talked about corporate philanthropy as well, because there's a whole chapter in Patricia's book on that, and we talked about the rise of purpose-driven business, compassionate capitalism and shared value and ideas like that, and whether that's something we should welcome or to some extent be skeptical about, and how that relates to the thinking around uh the bus the human rights responsibilities of businesses. Um we talked a lot about tainted donations and tainted wealth, um, because again, there's a couple of chapters in in the book uh about that, and we talked about uh what a human rights framework tells us about the question of whether or not non-profits should uh be willing to accept tainted money on in the on the basis of trying to sort of take bad money and put it to good purposes, or whether they would inevitably morally compromise themselves in doing so. Um we also had a really interesting conversation about um the distinction between tainted donors and tainted donations. Um the two cases in the book being uh explored are the the Sacklers as an example of uh tainted donations where the money itself has been created in a way that's ethically problematic. Um and a tainted donor being someone like Geoffrey Epstein, where the money was not necessarily made in a way that it in itself was was questionable, but the donor themselves was obviously hugely problematic, and how human rights thinking kind of applies to both those different contexts. Um we also talked about the idea of moral self-licensing and the idea that actually philanthropy can be problematic if it allows people to justify further bad behaviour and what that means for the question of whether or not nonprofits should engage with problematic donors. Um we also talked about the way in which uh nonprofits themselves have a responsibility when it comes to the depiction of recipients. Um and and again, there's a chapter in in Patricia's book about the whole question of poverty porn and whether this is something that kind of compromises the human rights of people who would be the traditional recipients of philanthropy. Um and then we also talked about the question of philanthropy and democracy, um, and again, whether human rights has something to say about the question of whether, in some cases, we should be willing to accept that philanthropy can be anti-democratic if it is furthering uh the cause of human rights. And then finally, we talked a bit about the sort of wider question of why it's valuable to take a philosophical view of philanthropy. So all that's in the conversation. Without further ado, um, let's go into it. I hope you enjoy it. Uh I certainly did. Uh, and I'll be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping. Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Patricia Illingworth. Hi, Patricia. Hi, how are you? I'm great, thank you. Um, great to have you on the podcast. And as I as I explained in the intro, so Patricia is here mostly to talk about a book that that she's got out that came out late last year called Giving Now, Accelerating Human Rights for All. So I really want to sort of dig into a lot of the content of the book, which covers some really fascinating questions about philanthropy and its role and how it relates to human rights and issues of justice. Um, but maybe the best place to start just for you to say a little bit about what it is that got you interested in philanthropy as a topic and what led you to write this book in particular.

SPEAKER_01 5:38

Well, I've been interested in philanthropy for many years. Um, I think my first initially I was working on it through global justice and thinking about well, how do we how do people in wealthy countries contribute to other countries and very poor countries? And I thought philanthropy was one way to achieve that, or at least to work in that direction. But more specifically, the current book looks at philanthropy from the perspective of human rights. And um, I had spent some time at the uh Kennedy School of Government and done some work with John Ruggie. And Ruggie came up with what are called the United Nations Guiding Principles for Human Rights. These have tended to be applied to for-profit businesses and for-profit organizations, but they are also relevant to nonprofit organizations. And so I was kind of intrigued by what the implications would be when we looked at philanthropy and nonprofit organizations through the lens of the United Nations guiding principles. And in part, I mean, I think human rights are important, but I also think that the United Nations guiding principles have been well received by for-profit companies. And I thought that the same might happen with nonprofits. So I think that was it. It's both the desire to help those who need it, but also I was intrigued by the these guiding principles.

SPEAKER_00 7:09

Yeah, absolutely. And there's a number of different ways, I think, in which you sort of apply this, the lens of human rights that are really interesting. I guess the sort of starting point for me in terms of the question of thinking about philanthropy um and and rights is that fundamental question of whether we should view philanthropy as something that is a choice, kind of inherently voluntary and therefore something to be kind of received with gratitude on the part of the recipient, or something that is to an extent a duty and therefore is kind of given uh to the recipient as a matter of rights. In your thinking, you know, where where do you think we need to be thinking on that sort of spectrum in terms of how we view uh philanthropy?

SPEAKER_01 7:48

Well, I think it philanthropy is a choice, but we also have human rights responsibilities. And philanthropy can be a good mechanism for us to meet those responsibilities. So donors can give wherever they want, but they also have responsibilities to respect human rights. And when they're in a position to help financially with human rights, uh, then they have a responsibility to do that. Uh, so so they can, you know, spend their money however they want, but they should also, but they do have the and sort of in the human rights language, duties are held by states and responsibilities by non-state actors. So non-state actors like individuals and donors and organized nonprofits have these human rights responsibilities. But you know, they're not legal. They're they're they're not legal responsibilities. So I think both are true. I I don't know if that's clear from what I said, but no, I absolutely.

SPEAKER_00 8:54

And and that's an a really interesting point you say there, that it's you know, they're not responsibilities or duties in the legal sense. I mean, I guess there's probably all sorts of different schools of thought about what the nature of that responsibility is, then. If it's a moral responsibility in some in some sense, what do you think the the actual kind of mechanism is? Um, I guess, particularly if we're not thinking as they would have done a long time ago, solely in kind of religious terms when it comes to the notion of moral responsibility?

SPEAKER_01 9:24

Yeah, I mean, there's ethics, our moral responsibilities, and some of which are based on religion, some of which are based on social norms. And then there are legal duties. And then there's an area kind of in the middle, which um in the human rights language or you know, is is called soft law. It's really an area between hard law and ethics. And soft law is interesting because sometimes it will become hard law, but it's sort of between ethics alone and law. Uh, so for example, with the guiding principles, some of the early use of those was with pharmaceutical companies and what their duties are with respect to essential medicines in poor countries. And, you know, many people say, well, yes, of course, pharmaceutical companies have duties to provide essential medicines. And very often they were doing research on the subjects in these uh countries, but and then not giving them the medicines because they didn't, they held on to the patents. But that, you know, but basically what the human rights literature was saying was that no, there was this stronger duty. And there is now a little international law saying that in fact pharmaceutical companies do have a dirty duty in some contexts. So I think it can, and in some countries, not all countries. So I think it's it can be important in that way. It can it can uh both sort of be a segue to a stronger responsibility.

SPEAKER_00 10:53

Yeah, uh and just thinking in terms of how this uh analysis applies to philanthropy, you kind of made the point before that that actually there to some extent you know it it still remains a choice. But if the way in which we do philanthropy is is dictated in part by responsibilities um that that are founded in in human rights, what does that mean for when we come to give? Does it just does it mean that we should be actively seeking to um support causes that that further human rights? Or is it that we're free to support other causes that don't seem as though they have a human rights element, so you know, the arts or or or culture, but just make sure that we don't infringe human rights in so doing?

SPEAKER_01 11:37

Well, I think you know, we can say, well, listen, I I do have human rights responsibilities. And and especially if I have the money to meet those responsibilities. And I would be wrong not to meet my human rights responsibilities. At the same time, I'm free to do what I want, and I could both meet my human rights responsibilities and then also uh, you know, do a little affinity giving or promote the arts because I love the arts, but I don't think they're interchangeable, right? I don't think the fact that we promote the arts can take the place of meeting our human rights responsibilities. And I I also think that probably we should not extend the charitable tax deduction to non-human rights sectors. I think you know that that I would I would suggest that that might be one way to incentivize people to give to um human rights.

SPEAKER_00 12:39

So so there the rationale being from the the point of view, I guess, of the government offering those tax incentives that that the basis for doing so is that they value things that are rights furthering. And whilst people would be free to support other things, they are not included in the compass of what is tax advantaged.

SPEAKER_01 12:58

Right. Yeah, and I think, I mean, the at least in the US, um, the charitable tax deduction is justified to some extent or largely on the basis of the fact that when people are giving to eligible nonprofits, which are 501c3s, they are doing the work of the state and um contributing to the languages of the public good. Well, it's not clear that the state has a duty to promote the symphony or you know, the Red Sox, the local team. And so when donors give to those things, they're not necessarily promoting, they're not necessarily doing the work of the state. They're doing something else. And that um, so so in those cases, you know, they're sort of depriving the state of money that it needs in order to do its work, but they're not actually doing the work it's themselves.

SPEAKER_00 13:59

Yeah, no, absolutely. Um one thing you you mentioned in in passing before was when we were talking about responsibility, you made a sort of a side to if you have the means to do so. And obviously, to some extent, all of us have, or you know, very many of us do have the means to do to do so and to act on our those responsibilities. But there are obviously, when we look at philanthropy, people who have significantly larger amounts of resources, and we're talking about very wealthy people. Do you in terms of your thinking about the human rights responsibilities that come with philanthropy, is there a qualitative difference between the giving of the very wealthy and sort of elite philanthropy and everyday giving of the sort that you or I might do? Or is it just a matter of degree and actually we all have similar responsibilities?

SPEAKER_01 14:45

Um I think that uh the difference that uh there is a difference between major donors and everyday donors. And one of the concerns that I have is that there has been a decline in um everyday donors and and and they're giving. They're just not, I mean, they give a lot when they do give, but fewer and fewer are giving. And that I think is a con is a concern because of the role that um their giving, especially, plays in civil society. Uh so that is a concern for me. Uh, and I think, you know, the other concern is that big donors um are more of a threat to democracy.

SPEAKER_00 15:30

Yeah, and certainly that link between philanthropy and democracy and whether actually having a broader base of everyday donors is is something I'd I'd uh really like to come on to um in a moment. Um the other thing I I wondered about, you know, it's linked to what we're saying uh already about the role of philanthropy, um, is in one point in the book, you you touch on the the argument that is often made by some that that actually in an in an ideal world, if we were genuinely uh kind of uh designing things to meet the needs of justice uh properly, um we wouldn't actually need philanthropy at all. What do you make of that sort of argument that that actually philanthropy to some extent represents a failure of society and and democracy as it stands, and that if we could design it better, we wouldn't need philanthropy at all? Or do you think there would always be a need for philanthropy of some sort, even in an idealized world?

SPEAKER_01 16:26

Well, I think that um you know philanthropy does uh does play an important role in uh civil society and in creating social capital and social trust, uh, which are important for effective communities and cooperation. And I'm thinking of Putnam's book, Bullying Alone. But I think that social needs should be met through taxes. And um, so this is sort of a band-aid measure that uh is sort of, you know, sort of succeeding in meeting basic needs and human rights, but um, it's not changing the system which creates the problem. And so we will continue to, you know, as long as taxes don't provide for, you know, in the US, educate, you know, universities are $70,000 a year. Um, that means they're just not going to be accessible to a lot of people. And maybe we can find, you know, we can support universities and we can provide, uh, and and in fact, major universities like Harvard, Yale, Princeton have have huge endowments. Maybe we can do that, but that's still not going to solve the problem, right? It's it's um it's a just a band-aid measure. And so I think a different tax system, especially in the US, would be helpful.

SPEAKER_00 17:50

Absolutely. And it's certainly something that um, you know, lots of people have kind of making that link between uh, you know, philanthropy being an insufficient way of meeting society's needs and the need for more wealth taxes. I guess you know, the interesting question to me is then if you assume that we were successful in those calls and had wealth taxes at the level that many sort of campaigners feel is necessary, what then would be the remaining role of philanthropic funding? What would it, you know, there would probably presumably be less of it, but it would be funding some different things because it would no longer be necessary to fund them. So um, but yeah, it's interesting to hear that you kind of think there's there's still that role and there's kind of additional value. Um, and particularly maybe if we're talking more about everyday giving than than elite giving, that that argument, um, the sort of Putnam argument about uh the value of a voluntary association is uh is even more compelling. One of the things I I really wanted to ask you about, because it's um something you you cover quite a lot in in the book, and it's a topic I'm I'm really interested in, is how this um focus on on human rights relates to the question of where wealth has come from in the first place and what that means for the the legitimacy of efforts to do good through giving it away, um, which is the sort of the what often is called the tainted donations uh tainted wealth problem. Um, what's your sort of assessment of how we can apply the thinking around human rights to the question of whether or not you can do good with bad money?

SPEAKER_01 19:20

Well, I again I try to apply the United Nations guiding principles on the logic of the principles to this question. And it's a little bit like for-profits in the sense that, you know, for-profits will sometimes make money by using supply chains that uh abuse human rights. Right. And so you they, you know, fast fashion, for example. And there's, you know, they they're able to do this because of the human rights violations. And so lots of people think, well, you know, we shouldn't be buying fast fashion because it involves human rights violations. And the guiding principles would say definitely no. Companies are responsible for their indirect human rights violations as well as their direct human rights violations. So by analogy, I would say that nonprofits are responsible for their complicity in um human rights violations and including their indirect complicity, right? So it's not, they don't have to actually commit the violation in order to be responsible for it. And when, I mean, the example that I speak about in the book, I think quite extensively, is Sackler. Uh, you know, the Sacklers made a lot of money on oxycontin, which contributed and is some people think is wholly responsible for the opioid epidemic and the loss of many lives. They knew about it, they knew quite early about it, they continued to do it when they were claimed bankruptcy, when they were asked to remedy it. And, you know, I mean, they just took no responsibility for it. They marketed aggressively. They, you know, so there was a anybody, any organization that accepts their money is on the human rights analysis complicit in that human rights violation of Purdue Pharma. So I, you know, if I think on that framework, uh, it's we should not accept their money. Nonprofits shouldn't accept their money.

SPEAKER_00 21:19

And and does that complicity come from the fact that it's known that they've taken the donation and they're presumably, therefore, the nonprofit is involved in some degree of reputation laundering or kind of burnishing the social status of the sacklers or other tainted donors? Uh or would it still apply even in the case where it was an anonymous donation or not well known that the money had been taken? Is it is it the transfer of the money that makes them complicit in the human rights abuse, or is it the fact that they're involved in a relationship that gives the donor uh elevated social status that's the problem?

SPEAKER_01 21:57

No, I think it's the fact that human rights violations. And that the human rights violation has enabled the organization, the nonprofit, to do the work that they're doing. And I think it's to some extent a matter of integrity, corporate, you know, or organizational integrity. I think that, you know, I teach a course on philanthropy and ethics, and I have a lot of students who sort of hear about hear their stories to some extent. And I had a student who was offered a job at MIT at the Media Lab, which is where Jeffrey Epstein was. And she at the time wasn't aware of what happened with Epstein. But people warned her, they said, don't go there. And it and so she didn't. She took another opportunity. But I think when we see how other stakeholders would respond, it's not just the fact that people know that Jeffrey Epstein was there or that money has come from Jeffrey, Jeffrey Epstein, but that, you know, the integrity of the organization and the respect for the various stakeholders that are going to interact with the organization are also important.

SPEAKER_00 23:07

Yeah, no, absolutely. And I want to just come back to that, the case of Epstein in particular, because as you say, it's one you cover in the book and make a really interesting distinction between tainted donations and tainted donors. I just wanted to follow through on the previous thought, just to ask whether whether you thought that applying a human rights lens could help solve the problem that some nonprofits find themselves in around the question of tainted donations, which is how they, as individuals working for an organization, can make a determination that a source of money is ethically questionable. Because I think there are clear-cut cases where it's, you know, the sanctions have been applied or laws have been broken. But then there's an enormous amount of grey area where people may disagree about whether or not money is okay to take. And certainly in the book, you I thought one of the really interesting things was you apply the sort of human rights framework as a way of saying actually you can more objectively assess whether or not it's okay, because we do have tools to sort of see whether human rights violations or whether human rights have been violated. Do you think that's something that could be applied in practice by nonprofits who are faced with some of these ethical challenges?

SPEAKER_01 24:20

Yes, I think they could do that. Yeah, quite easily. I mean, I think you know, they don't do it. And uh I think because it's they they don't, you know, they'd rather have the money. Uh and I think Yale, I think uh I forget what the context was, but at one point Yale, um, it might have been Epstein money or Sackler money, but Yale basically said, I think it was the president said something like, Well, we and we assume that all our donors are ethical and giving for the right reasons. And, you know, that's fine, but it's it's it's not that they could do more due diligence there, right? If they were really concerned about the integrity of the university and the well-being of their stakeholders, including their students and employees, researchers, then you know, they would do a little bit more due diligence to find out whether or not there have been human rights violations and and not wait until after the fact.

SPEAKER_00 25:18

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Um, and and coming back to to Epstein, particularly, as we were saying there, one of the I I thought this was interesting because it's something that had previously kind of occurred to me, but I'd never really developed the thought at all, was it seems slightly different to the um uh a lot of the cases of tainted uh donations, and particularly the Sacklers, where the mode of creation of the wealth there is the thing that's in question. Whereas in the case of Epstein, it's more him as an individual and other unrelated uh crimes that he's committed rather than necessarily just the way he's made it the money that's the problem. But you make a case in the book that actually if you apply human rights thinking, we should equally turn down money from tainted donors, not just from uh sources of wealth. Is you know, why why is it that you think that's important also to make that separate case?

SPEAKER_01 26:10

Oh, I think it's because it's I mean, some of it has to do with the integrity issues, but and from a human rights perspective, you know, he did violate human rights. He violated the rights of, I mean, he was trafficking in young girls. So he violated human rights. I think, you know, association with him um because of that is is a problem. And as I mentioned, the student who was offered a job there, you know, she would not have been comfortable working uh in that context. But the other thing that I talk about in that section, which I think is useful and was something that I learned about, was is the problem of um moral licensing. Uh, moral licensing is basically a mental glitch where people who do good feel entitled to do bad. And in fact, doing good and perceiving what you're doing as being something good can make you more vulnerable to moral licensing. So, for example, if I, you know, have been uh watching my diet and eating only healthy food and avoiding sweets and things like that, then I might think, oh, you know, gosh, that's great. You know, look at how good you've been. And then I would just binge on ice cream and things like that and candies and cakes. And I justify that to some extent on the basis of the fact that I had been so good. And one of the problems is that so, so one thing is that people are more vulnerable to moral licensing when they value being good. So ethics professors are really in trouble here, but when they value being good. Uh, but the consequences are that they when they do bad, and then we don't, there's a lot of studies on moral licensing, and I'll show also as it applies to corporations, but when they do bad, we it's the the bad isn't necessarily restricted to the organization they did good for. So if if Jeffrey Epstein gives money, and he didn't give that much actually to to MIT, but if he gives money to MIT and um then feels entitled to do bad, well, you know, the bad may be first of all, I think far greater than the million dollars that he gave, but it's also going to be shouldered by somebody other than MIT, um, or at least possibly shouldered, most likely shouldered by somebody other than MIT. And so there are consequences from for other people when nonprofits accept money from bad people.

SPEAKER_00 28:41

Yeah, I thought that that was really interesting um idea in the book and about uh kind of moral self-licensing, because it it seems to extend from the idea that by accepting money from a tainted donor and a nonprofit uh could be problematically kind of complicit in allowing them to present their reputation better to the world um despite having having done problematic things. It sort of takes that further and says, actually, no, you if you if you enter into that relationship, you can become the reason that that person in the future then goes on to commit further problematic uh violations of human rights. So I think it's really interesting because I think it's a much stronger case for why you should avoid um finding yourself in those relationships as a as a nonprofit.

SPEAKER_01 29:26

Yeah, that's well put.

SPEAKER_00 29:28

And and I just one of the other ways, I mean it's kind of takes it on a bit further and it's slightly different, um, but it's you know, it's related again because it's about this question of human rights and the way in which nonprofits understand their responsibilities, is less to do with the donors and more to do with the nonprofits themselves and and their fundraising. And you talk about the whole question of nonprofit fundraising and the depiction of recipients, and particularly the sort of the idea of poverty porn, um, which is you know a thing that nonprofits are quite often accused of of presenting people in poverty in very sort of negative, pitiable lights in order to raise money. Um and you make a case that actually, again, from a human rights perspective, we can understand this as a an infringement of the human rights of those recipients. Perhaps you could sort of say a bit about that and how you think it kind of applies to how nonprofits should be thinking about their fundraising.

SPEAKER_01 30:22

Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, poverty porn is exactly what you described. Uh, and uh that that you know, that is sort of poverty porn, you know, and in the extreme. But you know, I've also been to fundraisers where what they do is they bring, they bring the recipients, people who are, you know, going to benefit from the money out to the fundraising event. It'll be a big social event and everybody's, you know, donating money to be there and things like that. But then they bring the people out and then, you know, it's often teenagers or young, young people, and you know, make them kind of perform uh in in the, you know, to get to get the money in a sense of just you know make it more persuasive. And I think it's it's it does violate dignity. Um, unfortunately, I I I mean it shouldn't. Being in need should not violate our dignity, but um I think treating people that way as a means to an end does violate their dignity. And there is a human right to dignity, one of them, one of the major human rights is to to dignity. So I think that that does pose problems. I think it also leads people to give for the wrong reasons, right? What ideally we want people to do is to think about, is to do their due diligence, to um look at the organization, see what their work is, look at you know the outcomes, see how they're spending their money. And in this respect, I I do value these uh sort of meta-charities like Give Well, you know, that can provide the do the research and provide us with information. But instead of doing that, people are predisposed to give simply because they feel sorry for somebody. And that just seems like the wrong, it not only violates the right to dignity of those being depicted, but it also distracts donors from the kind of decision making that they should be making.

SPEAKER_00 32:17

And do you think again, there's is there a pragmatic challenge here for nonprofits, which is one I I've heard before when I've heard from uh international development organizations who have wanted, as you say, to get away from this idea of poverty porn and and kind of negative representations of people, particularly in the global south, who are in poverty. But that what they come up against is the unfortunate reality that it it works. This is an effective way of fundraising, precisely because it does tug at people's heartstrings. And as you say, maybe that leads to suboptimal forms of giving, but actually it kind of because that human connection and empathy is one of the big driving forces behind giving. Actually, if we shifted too far away from it and and tried to be too rational and to base everything on kind of rational assessments of of need and effectiveness, we might get better giving, but would we end up getting less giving? Um, I wonder if you you know have any sense of whether that is something that's in the back of the minds of nonprofits when it comes to thinking about you know this this sort of challenge.

SPEAKER_01 33:19

Yes, I'm sure it is.

SPEAKER_00 33:22

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 33:23

You know, I'm sure that it is, um, but it doesn't justify it, I think.

SPEAKER_00 33:29

No.

SPEAKER_01 33:30

There have to be other ways. Um I think I compared in the book, um, uh, there was a um one advertisement that sort of was a poverty porn advertisement, but then there was another one for money for children in a poor country, I can't remember which one when it was, where where they showed the child with a parent and depicted the child as a kind of superman. Um, and that does the opposite, right? I mean, you are asking the child to to be part of the advertising, but you're presenting the child not as somebody pathetic and suffering, but somebody, you know, powerful, someone who can really do things um and has superpowers in in a sense. So it seems, and I don't know whether, you know, that ad was successful in terms of uh generating money, but it's um, but I think, you know, I think it's it would be more persuasive to me, for example, I think, than than the other, which just kind of turns me right off. Interesting.

SPEAKER_00 34:32

And I'm sure there are uh you know other people who who feel similarly, and maybe there's you know, an extent to which there's a kind of received wisdom that you know we have to do these things because they work, but that's maybe because people haven't tried the alternative. Um one of the other things you talk about in one of the chapters of the book is is um focusing more on the responsibilities of um businesses and corporates when it comes to to philanthropy. And you you outline the the kind of Milton Friedman uh argument that that actually you know businesses don't have any social responsibilities beyond um making profits and returning those to their shareholders and how we've moved beyond that over the decades that followed. Um from your perspective, do you think the kind of the increasing rise of the idea that businesses have a social purpose and and can even be kind of largely purpose-driven and we have kind of compassionate uh capitalism? Do you think that's a good thing and something that we should take at face value and be positive about? Or do you think there are reasons to be skeptical uh about you know whether sometimes this is used to kind of cover up the fact that they aren't necessarily meeting their responsibilities when it comes to human rights?

SPEAKER_01 35:43

Well, I think we should definitely be skeptical, but at the same time, we should encourage them. Because, I mean, certainly corporations or businesses like Patagonia, you know, um, has done incredible work, but in general, big corporations. Uh, also there is a theory of business called shared value, which basically urges that when you do when businesses do good, they will also make more money. And a good example of that is electric cars. You know, electric cars are, you know, great for the environment, and they're going to make a lot of money. I mean, I think I'm not so crazy about Musk, but you know, but but still, you know, you have to give him credit for what he's done. And but I think the point just, you know, the point that in fact business can can make money and do good at the same time is important. And one that and maybe they would say a company like Joule, you know, that that that sells vaping sort of different flavors of vaping things, they, you know, are they losing money and they're being sued and they're causing harm, right? So you know, it may be, it may turn and tobacco companies in general, that's been true for them. So it may be that really if you do good and you promote something that's socially good, you will make more money. And you'll have, you know, so the pr and the profit will be more virtuous. I think that's the other thing, is that you know, profits can vary in terms of uh their moral quality.

SPEAKER_00 37:21

Yeah, absolutely. And and do you think, I mean, absolutely, there's that argument that that making money and more, uh actually kind of applying uh more ethical principles and the idea of social purpose can lead you to be more profitable. Is there still above and beyond that some responsibility on businesses to also recognize that they need to meet other other kind of responsibilities to society or the communities they operate in through more straightforward philanthropy or CSR activity, even if they are making their money in ways that are sort of socially positive too?

SPEAKER_01 37:56

Yeah, no, I think there, I think there is. It's kind of disappointing that they don't give more. You know, they rank fairly low in terms of how much they give, say, compared to big donors like Gates. So, yes, I think they should give more. On the other hand, um, I would not want there is also a phenomenon that's been fairly well researched called corporate social irresponsibility, which is um sort of the corporate analog to moral licensing in the individual cases. And there are some studies that show that when corporations do engage in um CSR, corporate social responsibility, they also follow that up with corporate social irresponsibility. And there was many years ago a study that showed that there were more human rights violations when they did that, when they were, you know, involved in CSR. So I think we'd have to be really sure because you know that they're not going to follow it up with CSIR, corporate social irresponsibility. And in part because they're so big, they could have a huge impact.

SPEAKER_00 39:00

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I suppose we have to be very careful. There aren't unintended consequences uh there. The the other thing I just wanted uh to ask about, because it's another big topic that you you uh touch on in the book and as a whole sort of set of questions I think that are really interesting around is um is the relationship between philanthropy and and democracy or the role that philanthropy plays within a democracy. Um from from your point of view in terms of the thinking you know in the book, do you think philanthropy is something that you know, at least potentially can be used to strengthen a democracy? Or do you think it's it actually sort of inherently acts as an anti-democratic force and something that we need to guard against?

SPEAKER_01 39:42

I think that when it protects human rights, we need we don't need to be as concerned about democracy uh as we would be in other cases. So one interesting thing with uh ex-president Trump's administration was that he say pulled out of uh the United Nations environmental giving. And big donors, uh, the name that comes to mind is Michael Bloomberg, I think was one of the main ones, came in and said, we're not going to pull out, we're going to, I'll personally give the share of the US money that the US should have given. I'll donate that. And so now that gives him, you know, a lot of influence. But, you know, everybody agrees that there's a right to a healthy environment. And in this case, democracy wasn't doing the work. In fact, democracy was undermining that right, right? I mean, ex-president Trump uh basically said, you know, I'm not going to protect that right. I don't, you know, and I and and he got there through democratic means. So sometimes, and I think, you know, human rights can sort of enable people to do things that and the human, the fact that it's a human right gives it a certain moral credibility that it wouldn't have otherwise.

SPEAKER_00 41:07

Yeah, no, and I think it's really interesting because I it's again, it's one of the the sort of tensions in this whole question around philanthropy and democracy is you can absolutely mount a case that it, you know, it is, particularly elite philanthropy is sort of inherently anti-democratic because it allows people with wealth and resources to run counter to the status quo. But as you say, if if we assume that in reality democracy is not always perfect and doesn't always lead to the right outcomes, actually sometimes we welcome precisely the fact that philanthropy can do that. But I think that that idea that you have a different yardstick that you can measure by in terms of human rights, when actually you can say, well, no, this may be technically undemocratic or anti-democratic, but actually it stacks up very well against the measure of human rights, and therefore it's something we should should welcome. I think is that's the really interesting way of framing that that challenge.

SPEAKER_01 41:58

Yeah, and I think the other example of that is is Bill Gates and Global Health. You know, I mean, he I think is second only to the US in terms of the amount of money that he donates to global health, and I think through the WHO. Well, that's a lot of power, right? But then, you know, we're talking about the right to health. You know, and he's done so much research on it as well, you know, that that he's in a good position to um to really, you know, implement it in a way that it's going to work.

SPEAKER_00 42:28

Yeah, absolutely. I'm aware I'm in danger of taking altogether too much of a time. So I just wanted to ask one one last question before I let you go, which is a sort of broader overview question, which I'm interested because I think um I don't very often get to talk to people coming from a philosophical perspective on philanthropy. And I think it's really fascinating. But I wonder from your your point of view, kind of why you think uh a philosophical perspective on philanthropy has particular value and kind of what it can offer to practitioners and to people thinking about issues around philanthropy that sort of other perspectives may not bring.

SPEAKER_01 43:05

Well, I think what it does is it can ask people to look at philanthropy critically and to, and that as a result of that, they can do a better job with it. You know, I see this with my students. You know, I mean, one of the problems is that in order to do this work, you have to criticize philanthropy a lot. And, you know, I mean, it's but but philanthropy is a good thing. And the people, you know, I have a lot of students who volunteer time um and do all kinds of public service. Um, and I have enormous respect for them. They assume that any kind of giving, you know, a lot of um organizations ask students to donate money, um, small amounts, but to donate money, and they assume that that's good giving. But it it sort of teaches them that no, you can look at this more critically, and you can even do better with your giving. And I think you know, that that's an important lesson for people. And I think. Philosophers are well positioned to cultivate that critical skill. I don't think that, but I don't think we want to overemphasize the negative. I think you know, my hope is that by using these guiding principles, which are quite practical and have been endorsed by lots of for-profit companies, I'm providing a way for nonprofits and donors and all the stakeholders involved in giving to actually operationalize these lessons. To, you know, then I suggest uh towards the end of the book that they engage in due diligence, right? That they think about, well, you know, where is this as a donor? You know, where is this money going? What is the history of this organization? Has there been, have there been any human rights violations? And similarly for nonprofits when they vet donors, right? I think so I think there are ways that we can do this without saying, okay, all philanthropy is bad, which strikes me as important. And and I think the other thing is there was a case that came up, this was not philanthropy so much as but it was donate donations, but there's a white supremacy group in the US called um the Proud Boys. And they were, they had a lot of money, a lot of food that they had collected and they were trying to donate the food to food banks in Connecticut. And the food banks didn't want that food, right? They were the Proud Boys, and you know, they didn't, they they felt it was not consistent with their values to accept the food. And so the Proud Boys went around trying to find somebody to take the food, but nobody wanted the food. But one of the things that happened as a result of the refusal of this one food bank to accept the food was that people from all over the world donated money to them. So they sort of took the moral high ground, right? And they vetted and they said, no, you know, we can't accept that. Even though some they, you know, some people would have had food if they had accepted it. Uh, but they actually ended up with something more, probably much more money, and they could have buy more food by by doing the right thing. And uh so I I found that, you know, that for me was something that, you know, made me feel quite optimistic about the the power that take, you know, taking a moral position and a human rights position on these things can can do.

SPEAKER_00 46:30

Yeah, it's a really interesting example, right? A great place to to leave things on a on a positive note. Um just remains to say thanks ever so much, Patricia, for for coming on the podcast.

SPEAKER_01 46:39

Thank you. Thank you so much. I'm I'm so pleased with the work you're doing. I think it's great, and um I'm I'm delighted to be part of it.

SPEAKER_00 46:47

Oh, thank you. And I'll put links to the in the show notes to places where people can find you and and find um details about buying the book as well. Um so thanks very much for that.

SPEAKER_01 46:57

All right, thank you.

SPEAKER_00 47:07

Okay, great. Well, my thanks again to Patricia for finding the time to come on the podcast. Um I put links in the show notes to places where you can find more about Patricia's work and where you can uh get hold of a copy of the book, which I certainly recommend reading. Um it's not overly long, it's really uh accessible and you know covers a lot of uh really interesting topics, as I hope was uh evident from the conversation. Uh if you're interested in more writing and thinking and podcasts and whatnot about philanthropy and civil society, please do check out uh my website at why philanthropymatters.com. Uh you can follow me on Twitter at Rodery underscore h underscore Davis or at for literacy. You can find me on LinkedIn, I'm also there on YouTube and various other places. Um so I'm sure you can uh go and uh Google that. If you've got ideas for people that we could talk to on the podcast or topics you'd like to see us cover, uh do drop me an email, Rodri at Y Philanthropymatters.com. Other than that, just like, subscribe, do tell all your friends or people you think will be interested about the podcast, and I will see you next time.

SPEAKER_02 48:08

Bye.