SPEAKER_00 0:12

You're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast with Rodri Davis.

SPEAKER_01 0:37

Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is a podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I'm your host, Rodri Davis, and this week we are in conversation with Sonnel Sachdev Patel. Now, Sonnel is a philanthropist. Indeed, she is the inaugural philanthropist in residence at the Marshall Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science. She's also the CEO of the God My Silent Partner or GMSP Foundation, which is her family foundation. And I was lucky enough to meet Sonnell a few years ago, and we had a few really interesting chats all about philanthropy and kind of her experience and her journey and the sort of reflections that she had had on philanthropy as you know, somebody actually kind of involved in doing it from the donor side. And you know, she's gone on to kind of develop those much further in that role at the LSC Marshall School. So I was really interested to have a chance to sit down and chat with uh Sonal on the podcast, which I did uh a few weeks ago, and we had a really great conversation. Um so yeah, we talked uh all about her philanthropy and her kind of family's philanthropy and how they had got into that in the first place and what that journey looked like. Um we also talked about her role at the LSE as a philanthropist uh in residence, kind of how that came about, what the aim of the role is, what she's learned so far, and what impact she's been able to have through the role and what kind of plans there are for it going forwards. Um we then talked about some of the things she learned in terms of what philanthropists can potentially bring to the table above and beyond money. I mean, money is obviously always important, but there's lots of other things in terms of skills and networks and that they can bring. We also talked about how when philanthropists do do that, they can do it with the required amount of humility, so sort of not coming in and assuming that they can solve problems on the behalf of others, but making sure that they're working in kind of genuine partnerships. Um and we talked about how that works in terms of the networks that philanthropists have and kind of recognising that aspect of their power. Uh, we also talked about the whole idea of kind of next generational next-gen philanthropy, because obviously sonnal is herself part of the next gen within a family uh philanthropy structure. Um, and we talked about whether next-gen philanthropists genuinely do have kind of distinctive characteristics in terms of how they think about philanthropy or how they want to do philanthropy, um, and what some of those characteristics might be. We also talked about the value for those next-gen philanthropists of finding like-minded peers among other next-gen philanthropists, and kind of how you can make that happen and what kind of value it brings when you when you do. We also talked about the whole phenomenon of doing philanthropy as a family, kind of how that works in practice, what some of the kind of the good bits about it and the opportunities are, and what some of the challenges that you might have to negotiate are as well, um, and kind of what the the strengths of doing philanthropy as a family are. Um, we also talked about advice and whether it is easy to get the kind of advice that you're looking for as a donor when you first get into philanthropy, what kind of advice that might be, where you might go to get it. Um we also talked about the approach to funding. Um, GMSP very much kind of is a relationship-based funder and funds on a trust uh-based um uh approach, but how you do that and how you kind of balance the the ability to take that trust-based approach against still wanting to have some sense of impact and kind of measure in the right way, and what that means in terms of how you develop those relationships and the kinds of due diligence that you uh that you need to do on the organizations that you're funding and what those relationships look like. Um, so without further ado, let's go into the conversation. Um, it's really, really interesting, so I'm sure you'll really, really enjoy it. I certainly did. Um, and then I will be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping. Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Sonnel Patel. Hi there, Sonnel.

SPEAKER_02 4:50

Hi.

SPEAKER_01 4:50

Uh and Sonnel, as you will have known if you've been listening to the introduction, is the CEO of GMSP Foundation and a philanthropist. So it's great uh to have Sonnell on the podcast, and I've been lucky enough to have the chance to chat to Sonnell about all things philanthropy a few times in the past, and we've had some great conversations, so I'm very much looking forward to this. The other thing I should say in terms of introducing you is, and you'll have to correct me on this, um, that you either still are or were until recently the uh philanthropist in residence at the LSE Marshall Institute. Um, I thought a really interesting starting point would be to talk about that and kind of what is a philanthropist in residence, how did that come about? What did the role involve? What did you learn?

SPEAKER_02 5:29

Sure, I still am. So it came about because I was thinking, I was being introduced to lots of different people who were having wealth events to talk to them about their philanthropy, just in an ad hoc way. So I'd have friends who were lawyers or who were wealth advisors, and they'd say, Oh, can you have a chat to my client or my friend? They've had this wealth event, and I know that you've been doing philanthropy. Can you just tell them about what you're doing? And I would always say, Yeah, sure, I will. And so it was a lovely uh, these were all lovely conversations, but they were really ad hoc. And so I felt like this needs to be much more thoughtful and scalable. So we know I could see that philanthropists were being really influenced by their peers. So, of course, they were getting formal advice from their banks, their tax advisors, their legal advisors, but many of them weren't connecting with their peers. And philanthropists lack a community. And I could see that because I'd meet people that had been funding the same work I'd been funding 10 years after we'd all been in the same industry. And I thought, gosh, it would have been useful if we could have connected. Um, and so this idea of philanthropist in residence came from artists in residence, and my sister-in-law actually was the entrepreneur in residence at Morgan Stanley, and I thought I could see the value she was having there. So my initial idea was to put it into banks because I felt like if you look at the say market landscape, banks were this intermediary where all of these wealthy individuals sit that we don't know who they are and we don't have access to. But the banks were a little bit uncertain when I proposed it to them. Um, and luckily I met Stefan Chambers, who's the head of the Marshall Institute, and I think you know him as well, but he's a very um clever but also open-minded person. So he said, come on, come and try it at the LSE. So that's how it came about.

SPEAKER_01 7:21

And and in terms of what the roles actually involved, that's kind of the idea behind it. What then has kind of happened in terms of trying to make some of those ideas a reality?

SPEAKER_02 7:31

Yeah, so I think it's three things. And the main one is the convenings that we host there. So we host these philanthropist-only round tables every quarter on different topics for philanthropists that I would say are not at the beginning of their journey, who are kind of at least five or so years into it, because those are the philanthropists who've kind of gone over those initial questions of how do I have impact? How do I structure my giving? Um, and they're they're more into the questions around what does impact really mean, and all of the things that you discuss on this podcast. So the convenings are the main thing that I do there, and they were set up for three reasons as well, which are one to build community uh between philanthropists, secondly, to create a cell-free space. Now, I know probably a lot of non-philanthropists are rolling their eyes at this, like, why do philanthropists need an extra space to convene? But the reality is, what I was finding is every time I would get invited to something, it would be because there was some kind of financial ask. And then I would get a little bit nervous about saying yes to things. I'd think, look, we don't have any more grant granting to give. I'm actually just not going to go to that. So the self-we-space has been really valuable and we don't ask them for anything. And the third was to provide a space for learning and debate where people could talk about different ideas or things they were unsure about without the risk of being judged or cancelled. And I feel like into it's we're getting into our third year, it's even more important that we have this neutral space to have debates about things that we're not unsure about or where we're sitting on the fence, uh, or even when we're really clear of what our idea is. Well, shouldn't we listen to what people on the other side think? So the first was convenings, and then the second was to contribute to the academic side of things. And I've been really lucky to be able to talk to students on various different courses at the LSE, the Marshall Institute. And the third, I guess, was to bring philanthropy and practice into an academic institution. So that's the idea for all the practitioners in residence is you're doing this out in the world, come on, like now come into this place and talk to us about what this looks like in practice.

SPEAKER_01 9:44

And what would you say are kind of the key things or main thing you've learned through that? Is there anything particularly that's surprised you or you thought, oh well, that wasn't what I expected to get out of this?

SPEAKER_02 9:54

I two things. Um, firstly, that how much people are longing for community, how uh again, I can feel the eye rolls even before saying this, but how philanthropy can be quite a lonely journey. And you know, you might have advisors or know of other people that are doing work, but it's different from having close confidence. Um, and at school this year I heard for the first time friendship as a method, and I really like that because when I first came into the sector, I'd been doing strategy consulting and I've always been in this cohort of organizations, and I felt like I had friends at work, and then I went into philanthropy and I was like, I have no friends at work, and I wanted to have friends, I want not just to have friends, but to be able to discuss with people what I'm facing in my work and for them to understand. So that I think that's been the something that surprised me is just how much people are longing for community, and then the other thing was I'd always hoped that it would unlock more, better and faster giving, but I knew it's going to be really hard to track that. But I've been having some ad hoc conversations with some of the philanthropists that have been coming, and I've been really pleased to hear how much it's unlocked money to different topics. So we had one of our round tables on democracy. What is what does it mean to fund democracy? And a lot of people think, oh, well, that's funding a political party, and I don't want to fund a political party because I just don't like them all, or for whatever reason, that will know actually funding civil society and grassroots organizations. There's an element of that that's funding democracy. And so people moving money towards areas that they may not have thought about giving to before has has made me really happy that that's the you know, there's an element of that impact.

SPEAKER_01 11:40

Yeah, it's so so interesting. I think on both fronts, I think particularly that one around building community and people's desire for that. And it's certainly in the research that that I've done on this recently, speaking to lots of donors, that comes across loud and clear that people do really value that, both for their own sake, because as you say, everybody wants to have a sense of a kind of peer group or a cohort and some sort of reassurance that you're not doing this entirely alone, but also more practically in terms of learning. And and I think you're right that lots of people maybe listening, although maybe it's a slightly self-selecting audience for this podcast, and maybe they're slightly more tolerant. Lots of people out there might, as you say, roll their eyes at the idea of philanthropists saying this is a bit difficult or lonely, but I think that's perfectly reasonable. I mean, all of us surely want that sense of you know having connection and not working entirely in a vacuum. And I don't think it's unreasonable at all for people who are giving away their money to try and uh to want to have that as well, and often that is missing because philanthropy is seen as this kind of lone endeavour. So um yeah, I think it's really, really interesting. I wanted to to ask as well, I'd love to come back to some of that because some of what you mentioned there about kind of people shifting towards different types of funding, I think it'd be really interesting to pick up on. But just in terms of your own philanthropy before you got involved in in the LSE, if you could you know give us a sense of what that has involved. So you're involved in uh GMSP, which is a family foundation, you are, I guess I mean, whether you want to be labelled the next gen philanthropist, you are the the next generation within that family and involved in the family philanthropy. So it'd be really interesting just to hear about kind of how that journey brought you to taking a pretty kind of I think thoughtful approach to philanthropy and sort of stepping back a bit and thinking about your philanthropy in much wider context.

SPEAKER_02 13:27

Yeah, so the uh the foundation was set up in 2006 by my parents. And I guess the thing to say is that it was the first formal way that they decided to, you know, stop giving, but they had always been giving. So my dad, my parents were immigrants to this country. They came from East Africa before the East African exodus. And my dad is one of 13 brothers and sisters, he's number nine, he's very proud of that because nine is a lucky number in our culture. But he was the first one that was sent to the UK. His father borrowed money for his ticket and he came here when he was 19, and he did, you know, stacking boxes and working in a library, selling ice cream, but also qualifying to be a become an accountant. Um, anyway, to cut a long story short, he and my mother built a nursing home business actually from my mum's desire to give back. I don't understand why old people in this country are not looked after like they are in the country that we come from, because traditionally we live in multi-generational families. And in our family, we still live like that. I I have my I live with my mother-in-law, my brother lives with my parents. But in this country, that you know, what happens to old people? So she started this nursing home business, and anyway, it became very successful and they sold it, and they had a wealth event. So that the foundation started from like a tax perspective of the advisors saying, look, if you're going to give, you might as well give in a tax efficient way. And I I know there's a whole conversation around that, which we can and cannot have afterwards. Um, so this is how the foundation started. I was um working at Bain and Company as a strategy consultant. Um, my sister was working, I have a twin sister, she was working as a in a financial services consultancy firm, my brother was working in the investment bank. So none of us had really anything to do with philanthropy, but it felt like a really natural thing to want to give away our family's wealth in a really thoughtful and way, in the same way we were with our business assets. So that's how I came to the foundation. And I'll be honest, I think I'm, I mean, I think, I know that I was really naive and stupid when I first started, because I thought that all of the skills that I gained in strategy consulting were going to mean that I would know how to give this money away in a really effective way. And I learned that, no, I yeah, I had some skills, but I really knew nothing about social impact or the charitable sector. And I've been so humbled and I'm so grateful to all the grassroots leaders that have taught me so much about giving. So we give now long-term unrestricted, I guess you'd call it trust-based philanthropy in India, um, in the and in the UK to marginalized groups.

SPEAKER_01 16:01

Yeah, and and it's a big part, I know, of what you do and sort of looking at the the information that you put about the approach on the website, this this idea of kind of taking a trust-based approach. What, I mean, you've sort of said a little bit there, but why why is that sort of so core to your approach to philanthropy? And and what do you make of the sort of wider debates that are going on about trying to shift norms more broadly towards that?

SPEAKER_02 16:24

Yeah, I don't get why trust-based philanthropy is so difficult for people to understand. Because when you're investing, you always trust your leadership team. And you invest in the leadership team and you say, look, I'm in investing in some data and AI company. I don't know anything about data and AI, but you do. And I know that you're super smart because of X, Y, and Z. This is why I trust that you're gonna be able to make money for me through this investment. So, in my opinion, trust-based philanthropy is the exact same thing. And I think that people um get it, they get confused and they think that trust-based philanthropy is kind of close your eyes and hope for the best. You know, these people are gonna do good work and let's just fingers crossed. And it's not bad at all. It's actually about saying that community the community understands the issues that they're facing much better than you possibly could. And what is expertise? Uh, and again, speaking of the stupidity I had when I first came to the sector, I remember going on a trip to India with Dasara to look at giving away a lump sum of money and being introduced to lots of different organisations. And one of them that we ended up funding had been to Harvard. He was an Indian man, but he'd been to Harvard and he had also worked at McKinsey. So I, in my naivety, was like, oh, he must be so clever. And it gave me comfort. And it, you know, it's a lot longer that I realized no lived experience is important. So I think that trust-based philanthropy is not about abandoning impact, but it's about understanding what impact truly look like. So we fund a lot in violence against women, and in the UK they'll say, well, the government will say you've worked with 50 women or 100 women. But what on earth does that even mean? You know, what are the needs of each of those women? Um, and how could you rehabilitate in inverted commas two rape survivors, you know, for £50,000? Or it doesn't work like that. So it doesn't mean that you're not tracking or looking at impact, but you're trying to understand what impact really looks like in the work that you're funding.

SPEAKER_01 18:31

And and in terms of how, so in practice, I guess, because we hear you know a lot about sort of trust-based approaches through the headlines that people like Mackenzie Scott have had for that her approach. And again, you know, any idea that it means just doing things in a kind of haphazard way or kind of nicey nicer way that doesn't involve being rigorous is nonsense because an enormous amount of work goes into that. And in her case, particularly, I guess a lot of it ends up being done up front in the sort of due diligence that that goes before you approach people or in the relationship building. For you, kind of how how does that happen? You know, what what does it mean to do due diligence or to develop a relationship to the point where you can take that fully trust-based approach?

SPEAKER_02 19:11

Yeah, so some of it is that we fund, if we're going to fund directly, it will be medium-sized organisations. It won't be organisations that are really small. So they will have had some sort of due diligence in terms of having their accounts checked and all of that sort of stuff. The UK is obviously simpler because of the Charities Commission, but in India it's slightly more complex in terms of having their accounts checked and those sorts of things. So, yeah, the first point is about looking at the numbers, that boring part of checking the legalities and have companies' accounts been filed on time, etc. But the second thing is about really taking time to understand the work. And that's why it works for us to fund long term, because it does take time to understand an issue. And as you know, you know, things are changing all the time. So the due diligence involves really getting to understand what is the team doing? And I don't think you can do that in a report, or or maybe the problem is with me, I don't understand the reports that well. So I love to have conversations with people and say, please help me understand what it is that you're doing, what are the big blockers that you're facing, um, you know, what are the challenges that keep you up at night? What would make a real difference to you? And I think, you know, going back to that whole human relationship thing, this comes with trust. Organizations are worried to tell funders this. And if a new funder comes to you and says, what are the challenges you're facing? You feel like, oh gosh, maybe they're going to pull their funding if I tell them that this went wrong. So for us, I think it's about us being in partnership with them rather than we're the funder and we're giving you the money. It's like we're trying to solve this problem together. Actually, what you're doing is the most difficult thing because you're going out there and you're doing the work. Giving money that's in excess of what you need for your day-to-day expenses is not the kind of risk that those organizations take. So the due diligence is trying to get down in the sort of trenches with them without being a really annoying funder and taking up loads of their time. Because the reality is they need to get on with their work and they don't want to be spending lots of time educating other people. So I think that's also the due diligence is about getting into spaces which don't drain your partner. Like, well, why don't you go out and look yourself to understand this space? You know, how about you read what the government says on this issue? Or, you know, you take the time. I, you know, I learned a lot actually. I did this resource racial justice course over the over COVID and thinking about what spaces you as a philanthropist mix in. So, you know, I used I thought, well, in the UK we're funding poverty, but who do I know that lives in a council house who's my friend? And that really had an impact on me that gosh, I'm mixing in all the bubbles that are just reinforcing the views that I already know.

SPEAKER_01 22:00

I think is is is a really important point because it's an a difficult one sometimes to talk about because as you say, from the point of view of a donor, to say some of these things about it sounds a bit overly worthy in a way, or people sort of again roll their eyes. But at a time when we're all really concerned about polarization in society and the fact that people increasingly are incapable of understanding people who have different lives to them or different viewpoints, actually these places and spaces where people from lots of different walks of life can come together are hugely important, I would say. And so I think actually if philanthropists kind of recognise that that's an important part of their giving, I think that, you know, I think that's kind of admirable and actually goes back. I mean, again, history nerd bit, but there's a really important bit of sort of the historical understanding of philanthropy that is yes, the transfer of the money is something, but it's the relationships between donor and recipient when done well and not being sort of patronizing and paternalistic that actually kind of reinforce societal bonds, and that stuff is really, really important. So I think it's really interesting to hear you say that. Um, you mentioned at one point the word risk there, which is I'm just going to park it for a moment, but I definitely want to come back to the whole question of philanthropy and risk. The thing I wanted to ask to follow up on what you just said was it kind of in saying, you know, that it's important when taking a trust-based approach to kind of immerse yourself and and have some humility and be willing to learn, I guess it already moves us beyond the idea that this is just philanthropy, it's just a straightforward kind of transactional thing where donor moves money from pot A so you know to pot B, and that that kind of does the job. I guess the the bit that I'd be really interested to hear a bit more about is what how can philanthropists think even more broadly about the types of value that they can bring? You know, obviously the money is important and it's hard to do anything without the money, but what are the other things and the other kind of assets that philanthropists can bring to bear when they're giving? Um, you know, whether that's kind of in terms of their time and whether it's in terms of their skills, whether it's in terms of their networks.

SPEAKER_02 24:02

Yeah, I think all of those are really good examples, Rodri, of what they can bring. And they should think about just not their financial capital, their social capital, their political capital, their cultural capital. And that I think often they philanthropists underestimate that. They feel like, oh, I really don't know anyone. Like, you know, I really it's like but they do. They do know people. Um, and they know a lot more people and they can get access into a lot more spaces than their charitable partners. And again, that's why when you're in relation with your charitable, your grassroots leader, you'll know that they need spaces for their strategy meetings. So if you have access to, we have a hotel business, you you know, that's a really easy thing that you can offer. What introductions can you make? And I think that's much more satisfying as well as a philanthropist to be able to give of your whole self rather than be like, I'm just gonna give money. And I think the point as well is that you won't move money well from pot A to pot B if you don't understand what the work is. There's also something that we think a lot about in our family, which is um the inner transformation and this sort of inner connection to other people. So we um we I I find it quite difficult to be able to articulate what it was that was important to us when we first started giving. And we would say, well, look, it's not we give with our values, and we know that our family values are values of love, trust, and humility. So, in our we want our foundation to be based on these values of love, trust, and humility. And I sort of had this feeling like I want to narrow down where we give because then I can become an expert in what we're doing. And I can't keep up to date with you know, this change in this legislation and this is what's impacting childhood nutrition. I just found it also overwhelming. And my parents would always say, but we want to give to marginalized groups, and that you know, but this is important and that is important. And when we finally kind of hashed it down, we got it down to the fact that it's the way that we feel is that we're all connected to this sort of greater source or this like inner connection, and so whether someone is from our community or another community, or what they're a different gender, or they're different caste or class or whatever it is that we're still fundamentally connected. And so we would say we give in spiritual solidarity, which is the understanding that we're all deeply connected, but we don't necessarily fund religious work, and that was always this miss this misconception that people would say, Oh, but do you will you insist on I don't know, giving us a Bible or giving us a Gita? Like, no, no, that's not what we're talking about here. So we, you know, we didn't necessarily always lead with that. But I think it's um it's just that giving can be so transformational for the giver and so so beautiful and so satisfying. And you want people to carry on giving. And I think when you feel like you're making a difference and you're really giving of yourself, then that can be truly satisfying. And I think that the next gem, we we're very aware of our privilege. I'm aware that my parents had my, you know, my father grew up in a two-bedroom house, he slept on a rollout mat in a kitchen. Because of what he's done, I've had a very different upbringing. And that feels really unfair. Well, just because of my birth, I've been born into a safe country and I have access to all of these things that other people don't have access to. That to me feels really wrong. And so I want to be able to use all aspects of my capital to support what I believe in.

SPEAKER_01 27:35

Yeah, absolutely. And I guess that um that leads on to some questions. I mean, I wanted to ask you about this whole idea of next gen philanthropy. I mean, it's it's difficult because I'm not don't ask you to be a spokesperson for an entire group of philanthropists who are, you know, enormously kind of diverse in terms of viewpoints and backgrounds, but but it is a kind of convenient shorthand that people are using to try and capture some sense of a shift, maybe. And what's your sense in terms of whether there is anything kind of meaningful there in terms of next-gen philanthropists taking a different view of their wealth or the role of philanthropy or their approach to philanthropy? Do you get a sense when you talk to other people who are in a similar position to you that that they kind of do, there is a common core to the way that they think and approach their philanthropy?

SPEAKER_02 28:24

Yeah, I mean, it might be again that I'm sitting in an echo chamber and therefore I attract people who think like me. I repel the ones that don't think like me. But what I'm seeing and what I'm hearing is that next-gen philanthropists are thinking much more about their impact holistically. So they're thinking about what is my business? Is my business causing harm? What about historical ways that our family has earned wealth? Which, you know, we never, I don't think, heard about that. Even when I started in philanthropy in like 2012, like I never heard people asking those questions. Um, so I think that the next gen are thinking differently. I also, because of this greatest wealth transfer, it's going to be many more women that are going to be holding wealth. I mean, you will know Wodry much better than I do because you know actual data and history. But what I've heard is that women give differently statistically when they're studied to men. So I think that this is something that a lot of the wealth advisors are really looking at is how do we support the next gen differently? And I think it's about being flexible in the offering that that they're being given and thinking much more deeply about ethical considerations. They're not happy with just my investments going to ESG. They want to know much more deeply exactly what is my entire footprint of impact.

SPEAKER_01 29:42

I guess one thing I'm really interested in, because I think I've seen this more and more over the last few years, is is in terms of next-gen philanthropy, there's this interest, particularly because there's this kind of generational wealth transfer that's going on. But in many cases, we're not talking about the next gen philanthropist being the current wealth holder. They might be involved in the family wealth through a kind of shared structure. And so you have these really interesting situations where the family as a whole are involved and you have kind of intergenerational dynamics. How have you found that in your experience? I mean, kind of working alongside your parents within the foundation. Have you sort of found it easy to translate those shared family values into agreement on what you're actually going to do in practice, or have some of those conversations taken a bit of work?

SPEAKER_02 30:30

We're a really close family that is very aligned in terms of our thinking on values and beliefs. Again, is that because our my parents have such strong values and beliefs, and therefore they've imprinted it into all of us, or just because we we naturally feel the same way that they do? So for us it's been quite natural because also my parents are very open. So they've always said that we don't think in our in our sort of spiritual tradition that having too much money is actually harmful. It's going to be a disincentive for you, you won't want to work, you know, and actually working is good for the brain and the soul and overall happiness. So our parents have always said to us that we're not going to give you a lot of money and inheritance. We are, we would like to give it away. And also that you're educated and you're you've got all of this access to things that all of these other people don't. So shouldn't they have that? Um, and again, it's this idea of which I think comes in spirituality that wealth is not doesn't belong to you, it's sort of passing through you, and it doesn't, it's not yours to keep. Uh, and I think we are quite my brother and my sister and I, we all have two children each, and we're trying to put that down to our children as well. And because again, our our parents brought us up with a lot of values that were not connected to money. So when we were kids, I remember my mum would always make extra food for neighbours or other people, or how can we support, or it's cold, so how can we help other people?

SPEAKER_01 31:54

Yeah, and I I've heard that from lots of people that actually the importance of kind of family and and kind of role models amongst parents and grandparents in shaping giving is is enormous, but it's not really, it doesn't tend to be about the money, like the number of cases that I've I've heard people say where you know, like you're saying, they're saying, well, actually at a point in time when I was younger we didn't have that much money, that you know, that wasn't the defining factor. The factor was it was all about the importance of getting involved in things and supporting people who are kind of less fortunate than yourself, and then at the point where you may or may not end up having plenty more money, hopefully those values have kind of been instilled in you. It doesn't need to kind of wait until that point. So um, yeah, it's definitely something I've heard other people echo as well. One thing I just wanted to to slightly circle back on, actually, because I thought it would be interesting to unpick. You you mentioned in terms of your your kind of own approach when you uh started getting involved in the foundation, that you your maybe your your initial thought that you would have all of this kind of expertise to bring to bear was was actually slightly deflated and that you needed to kind of have more humility about it. And I I guess there's a really interesting, wider question here for foundations or for philanthropists, which is how do you kind of have that requisite amount of humility, but not go so far into then thinking you don't have anything to bring to the table. I guess the the interesting thing is like in some of the debates about the role of foundations and the need to kind of shift towards you know participatory approaches or this kind of thing, there's sometimes a sense that actually, you know, really we should just kind of move towards all of the money just going straight out to the recipients, and you know, the at best the foundations are kind of a blocker on that, and they just need to shift the money more. But is there a kind of positive case for foundations actually adding value above and beyond the money? So, you know, can they is there something about the the position they sit in then that allows them to kind of have a slightly you know helicopter view of things, for instance, or to kind of you know be able to connect the dots in ways that individual organizations would never be able to? Do you ever feel that that there's there's that case to be made as well?

SPEAKER_02 34:04

Probably not for a small family foundation. No, perhaps not, but I I think it's about ego, I think it's about really deeply considering your role in the space, what you have to offer in a really honest way, not in a I've got this, you know, not in a self-promoting way. Don't look at your LinkedIn profile, for example. Um, what have you really got to offer? Where could the greatest good be done? And and again, I guess we have to remind ourselves, not all philanthropic foundations, of course, they want to do good, but they might also want to do good with the caveat of like, I want this wealth to preserve for many, many generations, because I think that having a foundation will unify my family. Like I think the opposite, but I know that there are a lot of other people that don't think that way.

SPEAKER_01 34:51

Yeah, absolutely. Um, another thing I wanted to ask actually, because obviously you've you know been on been on a journey again, it's sort of odd language there that sometimes makes people roll their eyes. But I think there is this sense that if you're doing philanthropy, it is it is a journey. And I think in your case, the the level of sort of you know thought and reflection that you've put into it means you've come to a a pretty kind of sophisticated understanding of it. But one of the the elements, I guess, of a lot of people's philanthropy is that at times they need guidance and advice. What's your sort of own personal experience been of getting help and advice on your philanthropy? And and do you have a sense of you know the kind of broader perspective on the importance of advice in philanthropy?

SPEAKER_02 35:31

Yeah, I think it's really important. And I I was had always worked in an environment where I'd had brilliant guidance, advice, and also role models. And that was, I think, what I was missing. And I didn't have philanthropic role models that I thought were like me. I thought, oh, these are really wealthy people, but they live a very different life to what we live. So, but I think that um advice and guidance is super important. I was really lucky um because I stumbled across Stars Foundation. I don't know if you remember them, and their CEO was a lady, is a lady called Muna Webbe, and um she gave me so much. I mean, loads of people gave me free advice, like by the way, fund unrestricted, because they want you to do, they don't want you to make mistakes. They're like, please just do it right, because so many people do it wrong. And she became a strategic advisor to our foundation, and I found her advice to be invaluable. Also, grassroots leaders um have been great advisors to us. And I guess the thing to say to that is pay for the advice that you get, don't just assume that they should give it to you for free. And then, you know, the banks I think there are some banks that do philanthropy advice much better than others, and I think that they're evolving because they're realizing that it's important to their clients. Um, so I've we you know we've had some support there, but I guess the the point to be careful about that is what is people's background. So often if they are coming from a bank, then they're advising you from a tax or a legal perspective, which of course is an important viewpoint to have. But the advice I wanted is the bit, the echo chamber part. What am I not seeing? Um, and I love this story about the um elephant, that blind people that look at the elephant, you know, that where each person, one person tells a tail, oh, it's a snake, and the other one touches a side, oh, it's a wall. I I know that there's so much of this story that I'm not seeing. So who can help give me an aspect to this story that I don't already have? So, because of my background, I probably already know the you know, the Western way of looking at this. I want to understand another way of looking at it.

SPEAKER_01 37:36

And and just on that point there, because I think you're right absolutely that there's there's a bit of philanthropy advice that is, you know, in many cases kind of necessary important, that is the sort of nuts and bolts of here's a structure, how you set it up, how you make it run. But maybe too often that's the sort of start and the end of it, because the the advice that people are getting from their wealth advisors or kind of tax advisors and lawyers and others is about that stuff. And maybe there's a gap between that and the bit of advice, which is about how do I answer these questions about how you know what I think philanthropy is and how to do it well and you know how I kind of reflect my values and these sorts of things. Do you, in your experience, is does it still require quite a lot from the donors themselves to kind of actively go out and find that stuff? And and is that potentially still a little bit of a barrier in terms of getting the the kinds of really good advice that that might help to shape philanthropy uh a bit more to be you know better or more effective?

SPEAKER_02 38:33

Yeah, I think that is a high bar because I think the problem is you don't even know what the questions are that you're asking. So how do you know I will these are the these are the answers I'm looking for because you haven't even figured out the question. And I thought it was interesting there when you said about you know, like what are the nuts and the bolts? Because there's this sort of what am I gonna do with this money? Uh, where is it gonna go? What's the impact it's gonna have? But there's a whole other question, which is who do I want to be through this philanthropy? Like, how is this gonna impact my life's journey? And again, I know I'm taking you into like deep waters here, but you know, one day we're all gonna die. And it's the one thing, death and taxes that we all have in common. And, you know, as we've seen with all these wealthy people that pass away, when you die, you're the exact same as the person in the next hospital bed who has much less wealth than you are. And so I do believe that there is a huge group of philanthropists that are thinking so much more around what how do I want to leave this world? What do I how can I put my hand on my heart at the end of my life and know myself? Not did someone give me a war, did they write an article about me? Because everyone can dupe people in that way, but can I really put my hand on my heart and say I lived a good life and I did the best I could with the resources I had? And that's the sort of advice that I think a lot of philanthropists are looking for, or guidance that it's just really hard for sort of formal advisors to give them because they just don't have that relationship. And that's what often comes by being in community. And actually, we're doing an exciting thing in my role at the LSE is a next step, which is we've had these ad, we've had these roundtables, and you know, philanthropists can come and go, but we're actually going to take a group of 10 to 15 philanthropists on a 12-month journey where we will go over some of the things that you sort of need to know about gender equality that the LSE is brilliant at because they've done academic research upon academic research, but whilst also connecting with grassroots, but also this other piece of like, what does leadership look like in philanthropy, but within my family? What are some of the family dynamics I might be navigating? You know, I mean as you said before, sometimes the wealth hasn't actually passed down. So, how do I advocate for the causes I believe in without being like pushed off to the side like this this young woman is so woke, she's just gonna give all our wealth away, don't trust her with any of the money. And I've hear that from other philanthropists that if I tell my family what I think about, say, tax, I'm not gonna inherit any money. Um, and so those are the sort of difficult things that I think that philanthropists aren't getting guidance and advice on and are really important.

SPEAKER_01 41:11

Yeah, I mean, I I would 100% agree. And I and I and I guess it's not necessarily it's it's easy to sort of lay the blame at the feet of wealth advisors and private bankers. As you say, they're not necessarily equipped to do that. It's quite hard to us to shift from a conversation around tax structures to one about what are your fundamental values and your kind of views of an ideal society. But but I guess the challenge is, you know, w how could we join the dots better so that if they find that their clients do seem to want to have those kinds of conversations, they can safely kind of signpost them to somewhere where they can get that kind of whether it's advice or whether it's more as you're saying there, actually kind of peer groups that that don't tell them what to think but allow them to have the space to do it? Um, so I mean it it feels like there's plenty more to do there. Another thing I wanted to ask actually, because it kind of ties into a few things that we've talked about there in terms of you know, philanthropists wanting to have those peer groups and also the challenges of kind of doing things alone. Do you, in your experience, how easy is it to get kind of genuine collaboration and working together in particularly as a philanthropic funder and as a foundation? Because I do hear plenty of times that there's a lot of rhetoric about how great collaboration is, but in reality it's often quite difficult to get funders to work well together. What's what's your experience of that?

SPEAKER_02 42:33

When you say funders work well together, do you mean co-fund?

SPEAKER_01 42:37

Yeah, I mean I guess it's on a spectrum from yeah, fully kind of co-funding to you know working alongside partners, maybe, you know, funding the same organization but different elements of it.

SPEAKER_02 42:49

Yeah, yeah, I think it's in practice, you're absolutely right, it doesn't happen. Um, and I think the reason it doesn't happen is because we find small areas where we disagree. Um and we actually did a really interesting round table at the LSE, which was on the anti-rights, on anti-rights funding. And we had an investigative journalist come and speak. Um, and she talked a lot about how when philanthropists are funding anti-wights, because we often think about philanthropy as being pro-human rights, but of course there's the other side, that they disagree on many things, but they'll say, Well, we all agree on, say, abortion or transgender or something that is an issue, a wedge issue that they can come together on. And they, you know, they might all be different religions as well, and they're deeply religious, but yet they can agree on these things. And I think that's where we go wrong in philanthropy. We say, Oh, but actually, like I want to fund over five years, and you want to fund over three years. What I do see work better is when um you get collaboratives that funders put money into. So we um fund quite a few collaboratives, like we fund the Dusra Rebuild Fund, and we've done some participatory grant making with like. Global Green Grants and Edge Fund and others. So that I think that's easier because then you don't have the philanthropist like directly talking to each other, and you have this kind of intermediary that can sort of manage all of these people. And but I think that's one of the things that we need to do much better. And we, you know, you've talked before, everyone talks about how we're a completely unregulated space. And that's that's something that is bad from that lack of rec regulation and lack of critique, is that we can continue to be inefficient, and there's no one to, or nothing that no mechanism that stops us from doing that.

SPEAKER_01 44:32

Yeah, absolutely. And I think what you highlight there in terms of using kind of intermediary funds and pooled funds, that feels like that's you know, it's it's a reasonable growth area from what I understand within philanthropy at the moment. And that's encouraging, precisely because, as you say, maybe people realise that actually trying to get funders or donors to work directly together is very difficult for all sorts of understandable reasons. But if you do create a little bit of infrastructure that allows them to pool that money, but not directly, and then also sometimes I guess has benefits as well in terms of allowing a higher degree of risk tolerance as well that the the you know the funders themselves might not have. Um there's all kinds of potential there. And and actually that makes me think one of the other things I wanted to ask is about this uh question of risk in philanthropy, because it's something you mentioned in passing before, but I I always think it's really interesting because when we have these debates, or certainly I end up having these debates about the the kind of the very legitimacy of philanthropy, you know, why do we allow it to exist in our society and particularly you know, why do we allow foundations? You quite often end up coming back to some version of the idea that, well, philanthropy can take risks of a kind that you know the government or the market can't take, and that allows it to do innovative things and to you know fund difficult things. And then there's this awkward question of yeah, but in in practice, how much of that actually happens and how often does philanthropy end up playing it safe? What what's your sort of approach to to understanding risk in your your philanthropy? Like, how do you think about risk and risk tolerance?

SPEAKER_02 46:07

I mean, I just think about risk relative to grassroots leaders. And whenever I'm confused, or someone asks me a question like, I don't know, I can't come back to like my values and my North Star, which is fund locally led solutions, grassroots leaders for the long term, they're the ones that are taking the risk. What is the risk that they're facing? They're facing risk to their safety, they're facing risk to their mental health. So, how can we try and mitigate that risk through funding safety and security through tech solutions, well-being, support, et cetera? Um, like I said before, you know, philanthropists in reality, they're giving away money that is in excess of what their needs are. So they probably have reputational risk, which I think is a real one. We did a round table on that as well. I think people really worry about their name being associated with different types of giving. And I think that it's easy for people to say, well, you shouldn't, you know, what's the risk that you're facing compared to the risk of the grassroots? But the reality is now in the world that we live in, that can mean that your organization could be completely shut down. And so I I guess I am I want to be an idealist, but I'm also a pragmatist. Like, well, actually, I want to get money out organisations, so I will try to do my best to navigate the environment that we live in and not raise alarm bells to anyone that I don't need to raise alarm bells to. But I think the over my overall thought with risk is that yes, we again we're not regulated. So of course, philanthropy can fund risky things, but in reality, how often is it funding the golden dome on the top of the building that the philanthropist wants to fund?

SPEAKER_01 47:40

And I think, I guess, in that there's absolutely right, increasingly, unfortunately, sort of very valid concerns about political and reputational risk. And, you know, obviously at a personal level of donors might find that concerning, but also they might just have practical concerns about whether that will get in the way of their ability to do the work that they need to do. I guess the the other bit of it maybe is what what what's the relationship between kind of risk and the perception of failure in philanthropy? Because I think again, you mentioned failure, I think, at a point earlier in the conversation, but it's doesn't always get talked about in in philanthropy. But is there an element that a risk of you know getting it wrong in some sense or being seen to be doing something that's not right or or very effective puts some donors off funding things that maybe are a bit less proven, and actually they just think, well, I'll fund this kind of you know thing that's already going or is a big name institution? Is is that a kind of understanding of of risk that we maybe need to challenge? And actually, do we need to embrace this idea of failing in the right way within philanthropy?

SPEAKER_02 48:46

Yeah, I think it comes down to the why. Why are you doing philanthropy? Are you doing it so that people can say, well done, you know, you've made a difference, or because you actually really want to see a change. And if you really want to see a change, then you need to see your role within the capital stack. So where does philanthropy sit? We do have government, they they are funding the welfare state, you know, everyone has opinions about that. But so therefore, philanthropy's role is to be a risk, is to be a risk taker. If there was no government, then we wouldn't, I don't think, want philanthropy to take as much risk. But given the environment that we sit in, it's like, where can my philanthropic money be really catalytic? And that is often to take risks. And again, what is failure? Is does failure mean that I couldn't see impact in the short term? If we want systemic change, then could in inverted commas failure now mean success later? And again, that's what always brings me back to it's really helps if you understand what it is your funding. And you know, the difficulty of that is that takes time. And it takes, I again was so naive. And I really wanted when I first came to the sector to have the people that had the expertise to just shortcut me. Like, I don't want to come in at step zero, I want to come in at step six, just give me your top 10 tips. And I had all this conversation with different people, and I realized now looking back that some of them they genuinely gave me their top tips, but I didn't have the capacity to understand fully what they were saying because I just hadn't immersed myself in it for long enough. And that was really frustrating for me. Because, and again, it was this like strategy consulting mindset. It's like I got three months, I've got to get a project done, and I need action, and that's not how the world works, and that's been a real learning curve for me.

SPEAKER_01 50:30

Yeah, that is really interesting. Um, I guess there's yeah, that sort of I mean, I think there's a good there's a good element to that frustration with taking things slowly, which is that it does, you know, it gives that kind of impetus can drive things forward, and often philanthropists coming to a problem, I think, can really bring that and and sort of add that to the mix. But then you also at some point, I guess, need to accept that these are often very big, difficult, complex problems and that they have been around for a long time and they aren't necessarily going to get solved in five or ten years. And and so, but finding that sort of sweet spot where you don't just take things slowly for the sake of it, but equally you accept that you know you have to kind of be slightly incremental at times as well. I I wanted to ask actually, because you sort of you know mentioned there about things that you learn. Um, I'd be really interested, you know, overall since you've been doing this, which is I guess so 2006 you said the foundation started, is that right?

SPEAKER_02 51:25

Yeah, I mean I've been doing it for about 12 years.

SPEAKER_01 51:28

12 years, but that's it, so good stretch of time. And I and I guess within that decade, there's been a lot that's that's gone on you know in the world, but also within philanthropy. And I wondered what your sense was, sort of on balance, of whether you think doing philanthropy and kind of talking about philanthropy has got easier because there you know undoubtedly are more sort of you know conversations going on about it and more people you know doing things sort of publicly and interesting stuff. And then at the same time, I think there's been more vocal critique of it and the kind of wider environments got more polarized and difficult. Do you do you feel like it's easier or more difficult or or the same, you know, to be kind of doing philanthropy and trying to talk about it in the world now than it was when he started?

SPEAKER_02 52:11

I I think it completely depends on the space that I would be speaking in, which honestly is why I was so nervous about coming on here because I I felt like I am quite thoughtful about where I say what I say, sometimes because I just might misspeak and use you know the wrong word, and it's like, oh gosh, how's that going to explode into my face? So I think it really depends on the space. But overall, just to try and be more helpful and answer the actual question, I think it's easier because people are talking much more about philanthropy in general. Um and of course, as we said, like because it's social media, anyone can get up and have a platform. And so we're just exposed to more people that are doing things. Whereas before, I think the philanthropy was something that was reserved to a certain class of society and none of the rest of us talked about it. And we thought of philanthropy as a certain like giving of big checks, whereas, like from you know, many immigrant communities, philanthropy, again in inverted commerce, has been happening all the time. You know, people are lending each other money, paying for each other's funerals, and all of this is happening, but no one ever thought of it as philanthropy.

SPEAKER_01 53:15

Yeah, and I think that's a great clear answer to a not especially clear question. So thank you very much for that, Sonal. Yeah, I'm aware that we're coming up in the hour, so I don't want to take up more time um than than allocated, but I just wanted to give a final sort of chance to say, you know, is there anything particular that you've got coming up that you want to alert people to, or any sort of particular asks that you've got in terms of the work that you're doing, either in your philanthropist in residence role or anything else at the moment?

SPEAKER_02 53:40

Well, one thing we didn't talk about is something really exciting that I've been involved in at the LSE, which is the 100X Impact Accelerator. Not sure if it's on your radar, but it's really interesting because it's looking at social ventures that have the potential to scale. And I like it because it's bringing together academics, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, or I should say social entrepreneurs, together to look at globally how we can find solutions for some of the biggest social issues that um are challenging us. So that's something that I think is super interesting that people should learn more about. And then I guess the second thing is if they're a philanthropist that would like to come on this 12-month fellowship that Gates is very generously funding at the LSE, um, then they should get in touch with me.

SPEAKER_01 54:26

Okay, that's excellent. Well, I will um figure out what the best way of doing that is in terms of putting uh information in the show notes. I'll definitely put some stuff uh about the the 100 uh times accelerator in there so people can look at that. And I know you've written some things in your role um as a philanthropist in residence. I'll put links in the show notes to those as well. Um just remains to say thanks ever so much for finding time to come on the podcast. It's always great to have the chance to talk about this stuff, and it's lovely to do it so that other people can have a chance to hear it as well.

SPEAKER_02 54:55

Thanks, Rodri. And can I say thank you to you? Because I, when I came to the sector, and even now, we'll often just be, I really don't understand this. Let me listen to Rodri's podcast on this. And I love your actually the stuff that you do at the beginning of the year, because it just gives me a sense of this, the landscape. And I'm sitting in my little silo, so it is super helpful. I don't know if you get that feedback, but I think there are a lot of people out there that really value everything that you do. So thank you from as well.

SPEAKER_01 55:20

That's very kind of you because it occasionally does uh feel like hard work and shouting the void. So it's very nice to have that feedback. Thanks, Sonal. Okay, well, my thanks again to Sonnell for finding the time to come on the podcast. Really great to have the chance to talk to her. It's always really interesting to get the perspective of a donor and certainly one who is so kind of reflective and self-aware. So it's really, really great to have a chance to talk. I will put links in the show notes to places where you can find more information on the work that Sonnell's doing as philanthropist in residence at LSE Marshall School and you know, places where you would be able to get in touch if you yourself are a philanthropist or a donor who'd be kind of interested in engaging with some of that work. I'll also put links to uh other things that I've written and other people have written that might be of interest and relevance to what we were talking about on the podcast. Um, if you're interested more broadly uh in issues around philanthropy and civil society, it's always worth checking out the website at why philanthropymatters.com. You can find all of the back episodes of this podcast. You can also find lots of sort of long form articles about various aspects of philanthropy, shorter guides to kind of key issues in philanthropy, lots of news updates on things that I've been doing and speaking about and saying and all that kind of thing. So do check it out. Uh, if you want to follow me on social media, you can also do that. You can find me on LinkedIn. I'm also there on Blue Sky, being a little bit quiet, but I'm definitely there. So if you want to come and make it worth my while to uh spend more time on Blue Sky, I'm very much up for that as well. Um, and if you uh like the podcast, you enjoyed this episode, you think other people would enjoy it, do uh spread the word. Uh tell people in person. I know uh IRL uh recommendations count for a lot, but also if you have the time to go and give us a nice review wherever it is you get your podcasts, that would also help bump us up the algorithm. Uh, other than that, it just remains to say uh thanks ever so much for listening, and I will see you next time. Bye.