SPEAKER_00 0:12

You're listening to the Philanthropisms podcast with Rodri Davis. I'm your host, Rodri Davis, and this week I'm joined by Renata Minervo. Renata is the co-founder and head of philanthropy at Be the Earth, which is a family foundation that focuses on environmental causes and on supporting indigenous movements around the world, and also on the kind of wider issues around the transition to a more uh just economy. Um they're based in South Africa and in the UK, and they operate in various other places around the world, including uh Brazil and Africa. Um so I sat down with Renata uh a short while ago um and we had a great chat. Um so we talked all about uh BD Earth and how it came about, um, what led them to focus on the particular cause areas that they focus on and to take the approach that they do. Um we talked about that approach, we talked about their approach to grant making, how they work with the organizations that they support. Um they're very much a trust-based funder, so how that works, why they do it, um, what you know you need to do in order to take a trust-based approach. Um we also talked about investments, uh, because another big thing for Be the Earth is that they very much apply the same approach to their investments as they do to their philanthropic work. We've actually got um a kind of investment company that is um a subdivision of the foundation. Um we talked about what it means to have a kind of closed loop model of investing and to take this overall kind of holistic approach to investments and grants. And some of the questions about whether, in certain cases, deciding whether to support something as an investment or as a grant uh is a challenge and kind of how you navigate some of those decisions. We also talked about the wider question of narratives around money and the role that wealth holders can play in trying to sort of move beyond the existing ways in which we think about money and power, and whether that is a challenge when you are yourself uh the one currently kind of holding the resources and and how funders can go about doing that. Um we also talked about next gen philanthropy, and Renata and her husband are very much kind of uh part of what would be seen as the next gen of philanthropy. And we talked about whether it's actually sort of helpful to talk in those terms and whether there is something distinctive about next generation wealth holders when it comes to philanthropy, or whether they're actually a much more homogenous group than we're often uh led to believe. We also talked about collaboration and how BD Earth uh works with other funders and with other types of organizations and why this was an important part of their approach, uh, and about their approach to events as well. They would very much uh use that as part of their overall mission, and particularly thinking about convening more like gatherings, which are kind of not like traditional events, and why that's an important part of what they do. And we also talked about flow funding, which is something that they uh like a thing that they've adopted, uh, an approach where money is kind of distributed uh down to individuals and they are chosen individuals, and then they're kind of given uh the responsibility for onward granting and why that was a really uh powerful way uh to get money through to the front lines and down to the grassroots and what they'd learned through doing that. Um so without further ado, let's go into the conversation with Renata, and I will be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping. Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Renata Minerbo. Hi there, Renata.

SPEAKER_02 4:20

Hello, thanks for having me.

SPEAKER_00 4:22

Oh, it's great to have you on the podcast. And as people will know from listening to the intro, you are the head of philanthropy and co-founder of the Be the Earth Foundation. Really great to have you on the podcast and really looking forward to talking all about the work that that you guys do and some of the sort of wider thinking that's behind that and that it's that it's kind of prompted for uh for you. I guess the best place to start is just if you could tell people a bit about what Be the Earth is and how it came about.

SPEAKER_02 4:47

Yeah, sure. Um so Be the Earth is a family foundation. We actually like referring to ourselves as a hybrid organization because both the impact investing and the philanthropy operate under the same vision. And the way it came about was um through my husband Seth. We usually joked that he was pregnant with B The Earth when we first met, but he was a solo parent, so I kind of joined together in this effort to have this more integrated approach and also more environmental lens to the philanthropy. So his family had been working with philanthropy for a while, focusing more on social justice, and uh he was very passionate about the environment and indigenous peoples and food systems, so that's how it started, and it evolved with the time, and now it's more of let's say focused on the how. So we're very interested in exploring different ways of doing philanthropy and being in relationship with partners to reach a more systemic uh result in a transition to move from an egocentric economy to a more of an eco-centric economy.

SPEAKER_00 6:03

Yeah, absolutely. And you mentioned a couple of things there about the um the way in which you've kind of integrated investments, for instance, in you know alongside philanthropy. And I'd love to talk a bit more about that. Um, I guess in terms of the how, as you mentioned there, what is it about the way that you go about supporting the organizations you work with that's distinctive? What are the kind of key characteristics of how you do that?

SPEAKER_02 6:24

Uh, I think that plays in different ways in different relationships, but the base is being very relational. So it's going beyond the financial uh transaction. So it's not only writing a check and asking for a report a year later, it's opening doors to other people from the network, often offering mentoring or capacity building or organizational support, also well-being practices, having these people join our events and our gatherings and be able to rest and connect and recharge in order to keep doing their work. So I think there is something in that sense that we have a more holistic approach in one hand. Another thing is a much less bureaucratic approach. So our due diligence, our selection process, how we get into relationships is less paperwork-based and more human-based. Also, the reporting is much more storytelling and testimonial and sharing the learnings and also the failures of the process, so not expecting everyone to get everything perfect as we wish we could, but it's not the reality. Um, so that's also something that is very important to us. How do we value results that are not only numbers and qualitative, sorry, quantitative, but much more qualitative?

SPEAKER_00 7:52

And do you try and balance those two things? I'm also really interested in um funders that are taking a more kind of relational or trust-based approach and trying to shift away from, as you say, being kind of rigidly focused on quantitative measures, but do you still have an element of quantitative alongside the qualitative and the sort of storytelling and the um individual relationships you have?

SPEAKER_02 8:14

Uh yes, we do. And I would say that's much more for our own accountability rather than to prove the reach and how good or bad the initiative is. So, for example, we aim to focus more on women and indigenous people and farmers. So these are three kinds of stakeholders that we try to get to make sure the money gets to them. So that's something we try to uh measure how much is actually going to them. And also in terms of geography, given we work in the UK, Brazil, and South Africa, how are we distributing the wealth among these three geographies? So it's much more like, and also how much of our work is actually decentralized decision making or unrestricted grants. So it's more like we're saying all these things and are we actually doing them? And some of it we can measure also in terms of the results of how many, I don't know, women we can reach through our programs and all of that. Uh, but some of it when we decentralize the decision making and we choose to do trust-based things, we kind of lose track in a good way.

SPEAKER_00 9:25

Yes.

SPEAKER_02 9:25

Of how far it goes.

SPEAKER_00 9:27

Yeah, and I suppose that's it, isn't it? You always, as as a funder or as any organization, you want to have some sense of that what you're doing is working. And so, you know, there's a certain amount of for your own purposes measuring just to make sure you're doing the right things. But also, as you say, particularly if you're handing over power, there comes a point where part of that is uh giving up on the idea that you can necessarily measure everything or the things that you know that you think um you know, as a funder might you might sort of start out thinking need measuring. I I also wondered another thing I I'm always really interested in with trust-based funders is there there's an enormous amount to be said about the sort of positive sides of it, but I one of the challenges that people often sort of raise is that it's it's difficult to to sort of overcome the challenge that you can end up relying on pre-existing relationships of trust. So obviously you're funding people that you know and that you have a relationship with, but how do you find the people that you don't already know? So, how do you go about making sure you're always casting that net wider?

SPEAKER_02 10:28

That's a reflection we often sit with. And I would say, well, everything we did for the first time, we called it a pilot and we did with people we knew to make sure we could make the most of this learning journey and kind of share the I don't know, feeling of being experimental and not knowing where that was heading. And then as soon as we landed in something that made more sense, the way we tried to do it uh are two different ways. So one of them is through the pool funds. And when we do the decentralized decision making, people actually reach others that we don't know. So we're trusting the, let's say, the committee that is in the position of decision making. So whoever they choose, we're trusting that as well. And for example, in one of our programs called flow funding, I can share more about it later. Uh, but our previous cohort that was composed by people we knew nominated the new fellows. So we say we're now working with who we trust, trusts, and again, they are in the position of doing the grant making and then reaching their own network. So it's still very much network-based, it's not necessarily reaching like 10 steps away from our own node within the network, but I think it's a one way of getting further from our own little bubble of relationships.

SPEAKER_00 11:57

Yeah, I guess you're always sort of expanding those circles out by giving it involving other people. Um, you mentioned flow funding now. I'd love to sort of pick up on that. Really interesting. It's um it's not a model I was I was hugely familiar with before um uh kind of preparing for this conversation, but it definitely has elements that cross over with some of the conversations that I'm seeing around things like participatory grant making and sort of citizen-led grant making. Maybe you could say a bit more about what flow funding is and kind of how you guys have adapted that model, particularly for the work that you do.

SPEAKER_02 12:27

Sure. Uh so flow funding was created by uh Marion Weber around 25 years ago, which is very incredible because it still seemed like a very innovative way of doing uh grant making. So I can't only imagine on those days how it was. Uh, but it's very simple basically. You invite individuals that have lived experience or connections with the topics that you want to work with, and give them a certain amount of money in their personal bank account so they can do whatever they want with it, and then you just trust basically who they're gonna choose to give, how much, how many people, why, all of that is kind of uh up to them. So the way we've adapted uh her approach was now we're actually on our sixth year, and we had four or five different circles so far. So now, as I said, one of our circles is working with who we trust, trusts. It's 12 women. We have another circle that we call the wisdom keepers. So they're more like elders that have influenced our own work and our own learning journey, and it's very inspiring to see who our, let's say, heroes are choosing to fund and what are they choosing to invest money and how and uh all of that. So basically, each one of them gets us type-in for their time and knowledge and network and all of that, and then the rest they can decide how they disperse. We gather every other month as a community to exchange knowledge, to debate more philosophical questions like the power of microgrands or how do you navigate the complexity of these times. So they kind of co-decide what are we gonna speak about as well, and we harvest some very interesting stories from them. So it's very, I think it's also very positive because it's very easy to operate. So from uh an organizational side of you, so not only can we reach like hundreds of people through their microgrants, but we are in a relationship with a total of uh 17 people, right? So, and we do one transaction to each one of them, and that's done in terms of our operational capacity. So I also recommend a lot from that perspective.

SPEAKER_00 14:53

And and you meant you sort of alluded to it there in terms of it, you know, you once you hand over that that kind of decision-making power, you then don't know in what direction people will take things. What has kind of surprised you most about the some of the things that they've chosen to fund, or you know, what what's going to throw in at surprises that you think, well, I never would have thought of that, but it's really interesting.

SPEAKER_02 15:14

I think one of the things that is surprising, but not anymore, because it keeps coming, and it's not even what they chose to fund. I can speak to that as well, but it's the feeling of becoming a funder. So I guess when you're on the ground, hands-on, working with the community and the activist is let's say, with many quotes, easy to judge the decisions of funders and all the control people want to have to make sure the money they're giving is being used how they said they would. And then these people become the funders, and then they see themselves in that position of being wanting to make the perfect decision or feeling very overwhelmed with needing to trust and seeing themselves kind of the pattern of wanting receipts to to kind of prove what how they use the funds, even though that's kind of the opposite of the approach, the philosophy, or even some people getting a bit upset that people are coming back and asking for more money, which is often the case with funders. So I think being in this position is amazing how many insights, and I think it's a great way of building this empathy and compassion to each other. And I think also in terms of what people chose to fund, it's interesting how some things like paying debts or health issues, or I don't know, simple things like putting fuel on a boat so people can transport things from a rivering community to somewhere else, or buying gardening equipment, so things that are actually not expensive at all, so it's very much in a micro scale of the amount of money, but the size of the impact is huge. So, as one example, there was in the Amazon community that fishes piraruku. It's a very big fish, it I think it weighs probably like 100 kilos or so, and these people used to, I don't know, manage to carry one or two fish at a time, and then one of the uh funders bought them a motorcycle, and then they could transport five at a time, which more than doubled their income. So that's one simple example of how how actually very the solution is very much on reach if you're there and you see with your own eyes or if you're in a deep relationship with the people experiencing, it's not as complicated to find solutions as we think.

SPEAKER_00 17:47

Yeah, I I think all those examples you see when you have people genuinely kind of there on the front line or kind of embedded in communities about where it's often very small practical things that you wouldn't know from the outside are the things that make the difference, but they do, and as you say, a sort of small amount of funding can have a huge impact. I was really interested in what you were saying there about the the way in which when you give people the sort of the power to make decisions about funding, how often it is that the same challenges that other funders have you know long sort of struggled with very quickly come to light. Do you think that that is just sort of tells you something that is almost kind of uh embedded in the very idea of what it is to be a funder or about human nature? Or is it reflection of the fact that we have these very dominant narratives about money and resources within the sector? And is part of the job actually to sort of try and move beyond that, both you know, both for you as a funder but also for the people that you're handing over responsibility to?

SPEAKER_02 18:44

I think it's both, because firstly, we're part of the system, so it's really hard to separate ourselves from the let's say uh usual practices. So this lack of trust or scarcity mindset or a need to control and make sure, and especially when it's other people's money, you feel very responsible, right? So it comes from a genuine kind of uh worry, and I think that's kind of part of the problem because rather than worrying, if we're trusting and kind of fully letting go, I think the magic there could ripple much further. And I think obviously if these people are used to applying for grants and having relationships that are very based on proof and documents and receipts and reports and all of that. So it's like I don't know, a child that grows in a house with very strict parents, they're gonna replicate that in a certain way or in a I don't know, military school. They'll probably grow and act in a certain way. So I think it's very hard to break all the patterns like on one go. And that's the interesting thing of having a three-year cycle as well. So each each uh cohort lasts for three years. So I feel the year one, everyone is a bit terrified. Some of them take more than six months to disperse their first dollar. Uh, and then after on the second year and then the third year, they get more relaxed and kind of flow into it, and they choose very different strategies, which is also very beautiful.

SPEAKER_00 20:22

Yeah, absolutely. And you mentioned there about that that idea of the sort of scarcity mindset, which is something I've been talking to people about recently on the the podcast, which is obviously a big challenge. As a funder, how do you yourselves try to kind of overcome that? And and how do you try to help the organizations that you're supporting overcome it? Because obviously it's you know, one of the challenges is that you know there is a certain reality to it, like you know, resources are slightly scarce in certain contexts because of the way the system has been designed currently, even if they don't necessarily need to be. So, how do you kind of create spaces where you can help people to see what it looks like when we don't operate under scarcity?

SPEAKER_02 21:01

Look, I think it's an interesting reflection that I've been sitting with, and it's also a thin line uh between being like naive or hypocritical given I do have access to resources. So I just want to put light to that when I'm uh sharing my thoughts on it. Uh, and I think it's a big part of the narrative we've inherited about capitalism and that kind of encourages competition and separation and all of that. So I feel that the scarcity mindset actually helps the system to keep function as it was designed to do, unfortunately. And I also think that we can, if we actually look to how these communities in vulnerability or people that live in their traditional ways of living, how they live with how much they live and how. how much they achieve and how happy many of them are, we're gonna see that it's like an illusion that we bought into, right? So I feel that there are other kinds of resources, other kinds of capital and knowledge that can be part of the exchange to keep functioning and having their needs addressed. And I think it's funny because when I was thinking of that, I was also thinking about like the risk that people see in funding these people that they won't be able to manage certain funds. And then I'm thinking these people manage to live with so little and they still make their ends meet. So if they're not creative and if they're not kind of good managers of their resources, I don't know who will be, right? Because they kind of make miracles out of it. And so I think it's it's complicated because the as you said the scarcity is real. So there's this competition for funds. And I fully believe that if we manage to kind of shift our narrative our mindset and just collaborate, get together with people that are willing to achieve similar things or in a similar territory. And I think bring the efforts together I think people would achieve much more with less struggle.

SPEAKER_00 23:23

Yeah and you and you mentioned there about collaboration um and you know as a kind of alternative to competition and I it feels like a thing that we hear a lot of positive rhetoric about in the philanthropy world and then a probably a lot less happening in practice actual kind of genuine collaboration. How what kinds of collaborations has Be the Earth entered into I mean have you found it easy to work alongside other funders for instance or have you kind of worked with corporates or with with kind of public sector organizations and how much work has it taken to sort of make that collaboration work in practice?

SPEAKER_02 23:58

We do work a lot in collaboration mostly with other funders and mostly with family foundations. I feel that we just kind of attract each other and there's a bit more autonomy and flexibility in how we operate. I think it definitely works well in many senses. So I would say firstly we don't have a huge budget. So when we get together with other funders we catalyze our budget and each other's budget and we can make something on a bigger scale. Secondly we have this shared learning journey and we build this relationship and trust and we influence each other in a very healthy way in terms of kind of inspiring each other's practices with our own. I think also for the recipients is also very beneficial because then they have to go through one due diligence, one reporting system you know you don't need to do that fragmented to each individual funder. So I think that optimizes a lot the time as well and the capacity and I'm I I think going a bit to the challenge side of things so it definitely takes longer the processes and because obviously you need to everyone shares their point of view and their agendas and it try to get to a consent and that needs mediation and facilitation and kind of a priority in the governance of that collaboration in one hand it so that often means it can be a bit more expensive as well if you need someone external to lead these conversations and to make sure that this collaboration actually happens in practice. So I think what often happens that I don't think it's necessarily that healthy is that it often it becomes its own institution, right? So we have cases that we created pool funds and then it grew which was amazing because we created this amazing committee of like the people with the lived experience that are going to make the decision and then you need someone to apply for more grants so we can increase the pot to this to distribute and all of that. But then you need to formalize this organization in order to apply for other funding and then you need a team and then you need you know so the kind of the cost grow and then the time consumption also grows. So it's I think I was reflecting on that and from all these different relationships and let's say collectives that we've interacted with there's one in Brazil that I feel is still very much a movement and refuses to institutionalize but they have this debate like at least twice a year and they're like very strongly kind of putting their foot down saying no we're not gonna institutionalize and we're gonna have obviously they have costs and they have volunteers, they find their own ways and they have their own challenges but it's not easy to not be sucked by the system and then just becoming one more project.

SPEAKER_00 27:00

Yeah absolutely and and I think one of the other things I sort of often hear about collaboration is that there is this challenge because people are so conditioned to working within institutions that you know you have kind of organizational identity and then particularly from the funder side there's very much a desire to make sure you know that your particular contribution is recognised and a sort of attribution. Have you found that actually when you do collaboration well it sort of requires a certain amount of humility and for people to be willing to sort of put that aside slightly and you know is that is that a challenge do you think particularly because of the way that funding tends to work.

SPEAKER_02 27:38

Yes, I guess humans are funny, aren't we? And I think we like kind of being recognized by the I don't know the mind that had the idea or the organization that had like this big insight and this great initiative so definitely requires humility and just yeah letting go of this ownership you know need of I don't know being seen as the leader and recognized and I think obviously we you want to know that what you're doing makes sense to the world and being recognized helps that feeling to be felt right uh but I think when you're collaborating it's definitely important to be able to compromise and give up things in order to accommodate others and I guess also it's something that often you only see the value of it later might feel a bit resentful in the moment but uh I like this saying that say uh we live life forward but we understand it backwards. So when you look back and when you see what emerged from it and maybe what you giving up something meant to the other people in the collective or what other idea emerged from something else being withdrawn is amazing. So I think it's a lot of inner work required to work in collaboration because you need to be yeah open and adapting to what the context requires.

SPEAKER_00 29:09

Yeah absolutely and and I just wanted also to to come back to something you mentioned a couple of times in passing about you know a lot of the work you do is is trying to fund sort of indigenous leaders and people right there on the front line of communities and uh often what that requires is a recognition of the value of quite different forms of knowledge and expertise that don't necessarily fit that neatly into the the kind of boxes or frameworks that we use for philanthropy. How do you kind of make that work whilst operating as a as a funder within that kind of philanthropy context and is it a a challenge sometimes to kind of make those two things fit together?

SPEAKER_02 29:47

Well yes and no I guess different organizations will have different needs to kind of communicate what they see as success or achievement and a good investment. So I think in our case since we have had quite a lot of experience on the ground so my background I used to have a social business in Brazil and I used to work on the front line for over 10 years. So I think it brings a different mindset to the approach and also other team members have been let's say with indigenous people and having this kind of experience and I think when you experience with your whole body with your with your whole self gives you another level of trust and um an embodiment of what is the meaning and the value of these people's work. So I think one way of doing it is as we've spoken before through this decentralized decision making. So having the indigenous peoples themselves or people that have been working in partnership with them for a long time now helping to flow these funds to the community to the grassroots peoples and organizations and it's often individuals we don't require them to be formal organizations or anything like that. We also partner with institutions that are kind of specialized let's say in managing these relationships because the truth is especially when you're talking about traditional peoples they operate in a different time like Kronos time is not necessarily how they operate there's something about the seasons and the moons and I don't know the rituals whatever reason it is that if we come with our Western mind and say we need this in one hour or in one week we'll probably not get that so often if we have no capacity to hold that there are other people that do. So we are part for example of one uh alliance that supports indigenous peoples in Brazil and there's one quite big organization they're 25 years old now so they've been going for a long time and they're really well connected and they know how to support them to respond to the Western world's needs in some ways. So I think someone creating this bridge in a non-extractive way can be very strategic to enable them to keep their essence and to do what they want to do and yet be able to respond to the Charity Commission or to your board.

SPEAKER_00 32:23

And yeah I suppose it's one of those where you know the how funders do that in a way where they can take as much of that burden on themselves as possible because you don't want to come in even with the best of intentions and accidentally sort of crush the thing that you were trying to allow to flourish.

SPEAKER_02 32:39

Yeah exactly I think that's a very important point because often we reflect on things for example should we help them formalize themselves and open our organization and and get this document and that document and then we're like is this colonizing them because we're introducing something that is not part of their culture. So it's really hard to find what's the let's say the balanced approach because obviously being formalized will open other doors for them but then we'll introduce also lots of requirements that they're not used to dealing with so uh I guess I don't know if there's a right or wrong to be honest. I think they kind of all need to coexist and they all play their different roles that complement each other.

SPEAKER_00 33:25

Yeah absolutely and I guess bringing together that point about um you know different forms of knowledge and different ways of thinking about the world and the the collaboration one of the things that that I know you guys do a lot of is kind of convene events but also gatherings and it sort of goes beyond it's not just you know here's a sector event let's get together and talk about funding. It's it's sort of wider than that as you say kind of um events that allow people to to come and sort of bring the whole of themselves. Maybe you could just say a bit more about kind of why that's a big part of your work and how some of those things operate.

SPEAKER_02 33:58

Yeah uh so we really trust that when we bring people together the magic happens and the magic being I don't know neo collaborations or learnings or insights or unlearnings so I feel that one thing that is very important to us is bringing different stakeholders into the same room and that doesn't happen often. So we will have from the shaman indigenous uh person to community leader all the way to the wealth holders advisors investors so it's very interesting when these people are in the same room and have difficult conversations what emerges from it in one hand it also helps each other kind of value others kind of ways of learning as we were speaking about just now so one will bring a more academic insight the other one will be a more nature based insight and they complement each other and I feel that through our gatherings because we don't do let's say traditional conference style so it's not that everyone's sitting on a chair watching someone give a talk or a lecture with slides and all of that. We have a little bit of that too because people like organized a bit of structure but we bring quite a bit of uh nature connection and arts and uh body movement and rest and long meals and you know time to connect and go for walks and things that are so simple and we even sometimes we ask ourselves should we share the program in advance because it might be that someone will read and say like that's not efficient enough right so we're kind of wanting to disconstruct what efficiency means because actually pretty much every year we hear about partnerships or funding that happens through people that uh met in these gatherings and I feel it also represents a bit of this new world we want to see. So we know how we're often talking about the change or a new way of existing or this more ecocentric economy and living in harmony with nature. And it's very heady still this conversation and when we host these gatherings in this way that bring together head, hearts and hands, we feel that we're having a little kind of sample of what life could be and what a work environment could be that is not sitting in front of a computer 10 hours a day.

SPEAKER_00 36:29

That sounds nice. And yeah I have to say I mean I you know I've I've only done uh been to a few kind of conferences or events where they've had different approaches and I ha I'm entirely sold because I've increasingly I find sitting and just watching traditional presentations or panels is often it's just you struggle to take in information and particularly as you say if it's about something that is kind of beyond the normal confines of what gets talked about in those spaces because it just the the fit isn't quite right. And if you have something like a kind of you know a meal or a different just a totally different way of bringing people together it's often much easier to kind of engage with with that sort of thinking. So I think it's yeah it's really interesting.

SPEAKER_02 37:07

Sometimes we're like in a concrete building the middle of the city and this whole conference about the environment and nature and you literally can't even see the light you know from the day. So it's very I mean it's very contradictive and paradoxical and as you said after the fourth fifth talk like the brain can't absorb anymore. So I feel it's a disservice to the learning process as well.

SPEAKER_00 37:33

Yeah absolutely and I just wanted to come back to something you mentioned right at the beginning because I wanted to make sure we talked about it a bit and that is the the approach that you guys take to investments alongside your sort of traditional philanthropic grant making because I know you're very keen that they're kind of entirely integrated and that there's not this sort of separation where you know you make money and invest it on the one hand and then you sort of you know come through a different door and start giving it away. Why is it so important for you that investments are made according to the same principles that you apply when you're giving money away?

SPEAKER_02 38:06

I think it's a matter of coherence. So if we're putting so much effort in the philanthropic side of the work with like this beautiful vision and you know meaningful mission and all of that and that's like a small percentage very often of what the whole portfolio is. So if we're let's say using 5% of the whole portfolio for philanthropy and then using 95% of this portfolio to just feed the system we want to change it's very contradictive like the maths doesn't work there. So I think it's important as an exercise when we think about these new economies and these new ways of living questioning what successful investments are, what percentage of return are acceptable how much can we grow, right? And how much is enough? So that's also a very important question when people are kind of designing their portfolio and especially for next generations if they're inheriting a certain amount they can plan any lifestyle you know think five generations and then if they do the maths often there's still a surplus that they could confidently be giving away without feeling this scarcity feeling even believe it or not it happens even with like ultra high net worth individuals right so I think it's very important exercise and it's also it's the same sector in many ways because it's all financial vehicles that enable other things to happen, right? So if we operate as they're completely different sectors that have nothing to do with each other, we'll never be able to transition and step out of this extractive model that is killing ourselves and our planet. And if we're operating in very different teams and governance and values it's just yeah it just doesn't work. It's like it will keep feeding the separation and then it's like putting a plaster when you need teachers, right? Like it's not gonna solve your problem.

SPEAKER_00 40:15

And is that what you mean? Because I know you talk um about having a closed loop model of investment. Is it essentially that that it's all kind of part of the same system and then any money that's generated through things that do generate a financial return is kind of going back in and then may make its way out again in another investment or it may end up providing the resources for a more traditional grant or some other kind of support?

SPEAKER_02 40:37

Yeah so how we're structured currently is a Be the Earth Foundation is a charity based in the UK and it owns Be the Earth investment. So anything generated by the investment company will be either reinvested in something else or uh donated as a part of the philanthropic budget. But also when we talk about the closed loops we are kind of exploring now what we're calling the replenishing model. So how can we also recycle some of the capital? So for example loans are one way of getting the money back we often do no interest or very little interest based on inflation or whatever that kind of comes back and then we can make another loan, right? Or when we do these events uh that we don't sell tickets for or when we do we do tiered so people can afford like different diverse people can join these events. So the money that these people pay will then enable others to participate or other things to happen. So it's also shifting a little bit of the narrative behind when the money comes in what happens to it and how do we recycle it because we are uh shrinking let's say the wealth so there is a spand down as part of our strategy uh but it's not a linear span down so it's not like by 2030 we're gonna have donated all the funds and we're gonna close BD earth we call ourselves the span down with a twist. So we're using the privilege of having this autonomy of choice and experimentation to try different models. So when we talk about this replenishing model we don't know yet if it works but it's something that we want to put some effort into experimenting or blended finance. So it's like the spectrum of capital if you think donation in one end and investment on the other end there are other financial models in between that help us remember that it's all part of the same pot and the same sector and helps us yeah bring this conversation together because often I feel that philanthropists think that investments are all extractive capitalists that want to grow their wealth and then investment thinks kind of philanthropy is wasted funds, you know, so we kind of need to have this conversation and just acknowledge that both play their role and both need each other.

SPEAKER_00 43:11

And do you find in practice that when the that sort of say for instance you come across an organization and you think they're doing great work and want to support does it tend to be that you're you're already thinking from the point of view of investment or or kind of more traditional grant making? Or actually have you found in any cases that you maybe start off thinking oh we'll support this organization with a grant and actually it turns out that once you understand what they need it's more appropriate to make an investment or a loan of some kind. So there's that flexibility dependent on you know what the the actual circumstances are.

SPEAKER_02 43:45

Yes it has happened before and in both ways either that we start thinking it's a donation and then it's often a loan it rarely goes from a donation to like an actual investment or the other way around that we Think it's gonna be something more on the investment loan side and then ends up being a grant. Uh, and I think it's a very practical learning journey. So we're still new in this integration of both sides of the spectrum. I guess since the beginning of Bid the Earth, we have been operating under the same vision, but we were operating separately with like the finance people here and the impact, you know, mindset people here, and speaking about the integrity and the alignment on the topics, but not necessarily how can they strengthen each other towards this eco-centric economy that we speak about. Um, so I guess there's not one size fit all, and it's not that loan is the solution for everything or donation is the solution, or right, like it's end, end, end. So I think there's enough complexity and challenges in the world that require different models. And sometimes someone will think they want a grant, but then when they have the mindset that they need to pay back a loan, that actually helps them grow their business. So I think it also it's kind of a pedagogical thing behind that can actually serve uh the entrepreneurs or whoever's leading these initiatives in different ways depending on the model we agree on.

SPEAKER_00 45:25

Yeah, absolutely. And and I mean, in terms of this sort of being taking a more coherent and holistic approach to um grant making and investments, it's something that's often identified as being, you know, there's more likely that next-gen philanthropists or a new generation of philanthropists are thinking that way. Um I'm always a little bit wary of that kind of thing because it's it's very easy to come up with these sort of broad brush, oh, all next-gen philanthropists are, you know, are X, Y, or Z. But I'd be really interested in in your perspective, you know, based on the work you do and the other funders you've kind of interacted with. Do you think there sort of genuinely is a groundswell of a kind of different way of thinking about philanthropy? And and is that tied, you know, certainly around family foundations, to the emergence of a new generation who are inheriting or going to inherit wealth and are thinking about this stuff in a slightly different way?

SPEAKER_02 46:17

Um I think the next generation has more access to information to start with. So questioning where the wealth is coming from, or what the ethics behind the family business, or all of this kind of inquiries, I can see that being a reality in the next generation, but I don't think that every single human in the next generation necessarily wants to be running a family foundation or their family business. So that's kind of a burden that we don't see often being spoken about. There's like this assumption that like you're a part of this family, so you need to take this over. And it might be that your interest is something completely different from that. And if you're pushed into something that your heart is not connected to, it's very unlikely that these people could do any good job, right? So I feel that if yeah, there's a different interest, and we there are people that are with the heart in the right place, and I'm I'm not saying it's necessarily the wrong place. I mean, if these people are not interested, I'm saying like they should be able to choose what they want to do with their lives, and there are other people that are very well placed to be running the family organizations, foundations, and things like that. So I think it's hard to put all the expectations on the hands of this next generation. Uh, and those who are interested, I do agree that they're more, let's say, like-minded to us in the sense of thinking that we need to integrate things more or do things more trust-based or reparation. So I guess it depends on each family history and that they will bring something that is important to them to be addressed.

SPEAKER_00 48:11

Yeah, and I I would say I definitely worry that there's the sometimes a danger of a narrative that's a bit like, oh, there are all these things that we need to sort of reform or to change about philanthropy, but don't worry, it'll be fine because the next generation's coming and it'll just happen automatically. And it it clearly won't. It obviously requires being very intentional, and even if there's the opportunity because there's a new generation of philanthropists, it still requires a lot of work.

SPEAKER_02 48:34

Yeah, I think the narrative has changed, right? So from one or two generations ago, there was like build as much wealth as you can and the means just to find the end. I don't think that's the narrative anymore. I think there is something about purpose and sustainability and climate change that is definitely part of the conversation and the mindset of people from younger generations. So, in some level, uh I agree that they might be able to address things differently, but it's obviously a collective effort. You can't just expect that the people can solve everything just because they're from a new generation.

SPEAKER_00 49:17

And in terms of that relationship, I guess, between wealth and philanthropy, one of the things that I've you know come across speaking to people who genuinely sort of, you know, in the next generation often, but not all, you know, not entirely, but who are engaging with those questions is this tension they feel between the the question of whether at the end of the day philanthropy is a sort of reflection of the system, it's a symptom of inequality and unfairness and therefore almost kind of part of the problem, versus it being something that can be used as a tool to address that that inequality. What what's your sense of that tension and kind of what what do you think you can do as a funder if you have that kind of tension in mind to make sure that you're using philanthropy as far as possible in a way that does genuinely get at the the underlying issues rather than just sort of you know doing things on the surface?

SPEAKER_02 50:12

Uh I would say I agree that philanthropy is both to start with. I think it is part of the problem and it is part of the solution. And uh often we're like, well, my goal is that philanthropy doesn't need to exist anymore, which I agree like it's a beautiful goal, but we're lots of steps away from that. So I think the complexity and one of the reasons why we encourage that investment and philanthropy come closer together is that so much is put on under the real uh responsibility on the philanthropy hand, right? So we're meant to address all social environmental issues, we're meant to address what the government can't address, we're meant to de-risk initiatives so they're able to be investable by sharks, let's say. And you know, it's like, and yet it's like 1% or 5% of a pot of money. So I think if the investment doesn't join this conversation and doesn't take responsibility for externalities, for I don't know, uh environmental destruction and uh people's quality of life and all of that, we won't be able to move the needle because it's not for the scale of the challenge that we have. I don't think that the amount uh sitting in philanthropy is enough to address all of that. And there's also an expectation when you see how traditional philanthropy, let's say, make a plan. So they make one grant for a year and then they want all the problems solved in a year, and then if that's not solved, they'll probably not renew the grant, and then they'll move to the next one and the next one, right? So I think there's also a mindset of this linear thinking and trying to address very complex systemic issues into a very simplistic, shallow, narrow way. And I don't think we'll be able to get to the root of the challenges we want to if we keep operating from that place.

SPEAKER_00 52:30

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Listen, Renata, just remain to say thanks ever so much for coming on the podcast. Really great to have the chance to talk. Before I let you go, I just want to check if there's anything particular that you want to direct people's attention to around your work. I'll obviously share links in the show notes to places where people can find out more. But if you've got anything coming up that you want to flag up to people, now's now's the opportunity.

SPEAKER_02 52:51

I think it's worth mentioning that we have two physical spaces. So in London, we have the Beehive London that is uh in Oxford Circus. Often we have events there, it's also a co-working space, so it's worth having a look to see events coming on, and also it's a very amazing uh space to meet like-minded people, and same here in South Africa where I'm based. We also have the beehive Cape Winelands, where I have quite a few events happening as well, and workshops, we have an agroforest that people can take tours and learn more about this way of doing things. So uh often we share opportunities through our newsletter. We have the reciprocity hive as well, where people can make offers of what they're working on, their services, their products. So if people are interested in checking what's available there or even want to offer their own knowledge and skills, that's more than welcome. That's one way we try to also leverage the network beyond financial support, is giving some visibility and helping bridge people uh with demands and uh their offers. Thank you so much.

SPEAKER_00 54:07

No, no problem. I'll make sure I put links to all of those in the show notes so people can check them out uh as well. And yeah, just for me to say thanks ever so much and all the best for the future. Really great to talk.

SPEAKER_02 54:16

Thank you. It was very lovely. A pleasure to be here.

SPEAKER_00 54:28

Okay, great. Well, my thanks again to Renata for coming on the podcast. It's great to have a chance to hear from her, uh, hear all about the work that Be the Earth is doing. Uh, I'll put links to places where you can find out more about that work and read some things that Renata's written that kind of expand on some of the stuff we touched on in the conversation. Uh I'll also put some things that I've written that are relevant that you might be interested in. If you're interested more broadly in issues around philanthropy and civil society, uh always good to check out the website at whyphilanthropymatters.com. Lots of long-form articles there, shorter form guides, news updates, all the back issues of this uh this podcast. Uh so loads there to dig into. Uh if you want to follow me on social media, you can do that as well on LinkedIn and on Blue Sky. Uh and you get kind of uh more regular updates and thoughts and waffling from me all about philanthropy. If you've got ideas for people I could talk to on the podcast or topics you'd like to see us cover, do drop me a line. Uh you can get my contact details on the website at whyphilanthropymatters.com. Other than that, I just remain to say thanks ever so much for listening. The support means a lot. Uh, I hope you enjoy the podcast. If you do uh and feel so minded, if you could leave us a nice review wherever it is that you get your podcasts, that would be really great. Uh and also if you think that you know people, colleagues or friends who might be interested as well, do spread the good word and tell them. I think a personal recommendation goes a long way. Um, other than that, I will see you next time.

SPEAKER_01 55:53

Bye.