Ford Foundation’s Darren Walker

Posted on October 31, 2014 by jeffhoffmanassociate

Today I attended a “A Philanthropic Journey: A Conversation with Darren Walker.” The lecture is part of the USC Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy’s Distinguished Speakers series. Darren has led the Ford Foundation for a little more than a year. In this short time, he has made quite a mark on the organization. The Foundation works “on the frontlines of social change around the world, working with visionary leaders and organizations to change social structures and institutions—so that everyone has the opportunity to achieve their full potential and have a voice in decisions that affect them.” Darren has more than two decades of nonprofit and philanthropic leadership focusing on social justice.  The conversation was conducted by Fred Ali, CEO of the Weingart Foundation.

He talked a lot about leadership. “Look disruptively at building a team. Leadership and success today are not often correlated to empathy, or human understanding, but to spreadsheets and apps. Strategy can be alluring, plus you can put it in a PowerPoint! Culture is messy. That is real leadership.” He focuses on culture and his staff on strategy. He brought in an incredible team that puts more pressure on him to deliver. “We under optimize the privilege we have. We have become institutionalized, metrics have taken us away from the urgency and the passion. People need to feel the sense of urgency.”

His trajectory has been a result of public and private intersections. Educationally, he says, the Ford Foundation gave a grant to Yale to do research that led to the establishment of Head Start, a program that helped Darren as a child. In college, a Pell Grant and philanthropy got him through school. What prepared him most in life was his first job, that of a busboy in 7th grade. “Amazing what you hear about humanity when you are invisible, you learn a lot.” For this job, he was an internal candidate. “Boards haven’t always valued internal talent. Organizations have not always prepared staff to become CEOs. Ford was different.”

“It can be frustrating when a new leader comes in and “the old” needs to be blown up. I don’t think it works. It’s too personally driven. What we are doing is iterating over time, deepening grant making in our focus areas. We work in complex systems, logical frameworks don’t always work. We need to put the institution at the center and we are the supporters. Too much of the time incentives are against collaborations. It’s about what did we get? What are we buying? What credit did we get? Boards need to push for collaboration.” He hopes that we are past the tired discourse of the last 10 years. “Is it strategic or not? If messy, it could create impact.”

Lastly, research. “You have got to connect action to the research. Otherwise it’s just a report in a file. At USC, I see the research in action such as with The White House project on Federal Public Private Partnerships.

He sprinkled much humor in his remarks. He talked about the great leaders of philanthropy whose institutions live today, how times have changed, and what they must think: “John D. Rockefeller with the Rockefeller Foundation being headed by a Jewish Female, Andrew Carnegie and the Carnegie Corporate headed by an Armenian Immigrant and Henry Ford and the Ford Foundation led by a Black Gay!”

http://cppp.usc.edu/

http://www.fordfoundation.org/

Posted in Philanthropy | Leave a comment

Corporate Sustainability: The Board’s Role

Posted on October 26, 2014 by jeffhoffmanassociate

“Value creation, long-term business resiliency, strategic risk management, and stewardship represent the essence of the board’s role in overseeing corporate sustainability activities. Sustainability oversight is increasingly becoming a board-level issue for several reasons. First and most fundamentally, boards are meant to safeguard the assets of the companies they serve, and one of the trickiest “assets” to understand, let alone protect, is the company’s social license to operate. Second, the ways in which a company affects, and is affected by, global mega-trends such as population growth, an expanding urban middle class in emerging markets, demographic change, resource scarcity, climate change, and transformative technologies—all of which fall under the rubric of sustainability issues—are often at the core of board-management discussions about strategy, risk, and performance. Thus, understanding how a company executes its business model within a changing operating context, and with an eye toward long-term profitability, is squarely a board issue and a director’s responsibility.” This powerful paragraph leads the National Association of Corporate Director’s (NACD) new handbook. “Oversight of Corporate Sustainability Activities.”

The report presents four recommendations:
• Directors should understand the company’s definition of sustainability in the context of the company’s strategy and specific circumstances.
• The board and management should align on the sustainability message and information the company chooses to report publicly.
• Boards should clarify roles for oversight responsibility of sustainability activities, including external reporting.
• Directors need to establish parameters for sustainability reporting to the board regarding the information required to support robust discussions with management.
The report suggests that one third of U.S. companies have board oversight of CSR initiatives.

Earlier this month I attended the annual NACD Board Leadership Conference. Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability were topics I was pleased to see covered within a variety of the subject matter presented. There was also a breakout session and peer exchange forum set on the specific topic.

Some takeaways: What does oversight and governance of sustainability activities mean? This was the question posed at the break out. Comments included: “Not one size fits all.” “Driven by risk and opportunities profile.” “What is happening within the sector/industry?” “What is the corporate culture?” “What is the potential of the issue to create material impact to the business in the future?” The phases of CSR communications: “What should we be doing?” “Look what we are going to be doing.” “Look at the great things we are doing.”

The theme throughout the session is that Sustainability, or Corporate Social Responsibility, is migrating from risk and cost cutting to seizing opportunities and being an integral part of the company’s values. An import step in the right direct!

http://www.nacdonline.org/Conference/index.cfm?itemNumber=3370
http://www.nacdonline.org/Store/ProductDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12138

Posted in Corporate Citizenship, Corporate Governance | Leave a comment

Cyber Threats, a Sobering and Optimistic View

Posted on October 13, 2014 by jeffhoffmanassociate

With the high profile cyber compromises of such large retailers, such as Target and Home Depot, along with many other types of businesses, puts this topic front and center at this year’s National Association of Corporate Directors Board Leadership Conference. Michael Daniel, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator at The White House, spoke to the convening about the broad cyber-threat landscape that companies face, the global trends he is following, and the administration’s priorities for addressing cyber threats.

“Cyber-attacks are diverse, sophisticated and dangerous. A multi-faceted, wicked problem. Malicious actors are moving up the threat scale. Six years ago, digital graffiti. Today they are attempting to destroy data. Cyber security is a technology, economic, psychological, political and business problem all wrapped into one, which makes it hard to take collective action. What keeps me up at night? An attack on our financial sector that manipulates data and casts doubt on markets.”

Michael spoke about solutions. “Everyone knows that passwords are terrible. We have technologies that are more secure. We need to address the psychology of security. We have to figure out ways to design software more securely from the ground up. The internet is a physics challenge as it has borders but no interiors. It requires governments, business and others to develop relationships that aren’t regulatory, or contractual, but that are collaborative.”

While his remarks caused the room to take pause, it reinforced the importance of board oversight of cyber security. Michael, in a half hour, gave the best overview I have heard regarding this challenging and critical issue. He did close on a high note. “I’m still optimistic. Working collaboratively we can address cyber security.”

http://www.nacdonline.org/Conference/index.cfm

 

Posted in Corporate Governance | Leave a comment

2014 IAVE World Volunteer Conference – Australia

Posted on September 23, 2014 by jeffhoffmanassociate

Reflections on how volunteers were central to much of the work of the Millennium Development Goals, and how voluntary organizations are preparing to be an integral part of all global, national and local plans supporting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, was a thread that ran throughout the IAVE 2014 Conference. IAVE, the International Association of Volunteer Effort held its 23rd World Conference this month on the Gold Coast of Australia. Close to 800 delegates from NGOs, Businesses and Governments representing more than 60 countries participated. The theme “Volunteering – Today’s Imperative” was especially evident in the business programing.

The Global Corporate Volunteer Council (GCVC) met the preceding two days with a deep dive into volunteering as a tool for professional development. I presented a Disney example of how a senior European executive charged with law and government relations was being groomed to take over as a country manager. She is smart and talented, but lacked hands on operational experience. The regional human resources lead called me to brainstorm. We suggested that she be placed on the board of an organization that the company had a strong relationship with and would offer the kind of exposure and governance oversight into a complex operation. In Kind Direct was chosen, a group that takes donated excess product and distributes it to NGOs who can utilize the product. The match was perfect as the company’s involvement with the organization deepened and the executive, who became country manager, received valuable operational oversight experience.

“We don’t make progress if we are not talking about it.. What are we not talking about now? What are the things we won’t talk about today? That is what we will talk about in the future!” said The Honorable Michael Kirby, retired judge of Australia’s High Court. “As volunteers we stand up for unpopular causes. Being kind to children does not really test us.” These statements from the opening keynote speaker. This man, who as a volunteer, was head of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Alleged Human Rights Violations in North Korea, has spent a career tackling the tough issues. He talked about how volunteers are often at the forefront of tackling unpopular issues. He held the audience in the palm of his hand for 45 minutes and energized the group.

Some of the business presenters had some great nuggets of information. Vanessa Cover of Deloitte (Australia) said that “micro-volunteering is the skilled volunteering of the digital age.” Nichole Campbell of Intuit (Canada) when discussing taking Skills Based Volunteering to the next level said they ask employee volunteers to identify social problems to solve, then solves them together. Jiseon Tak of Samsung (Korea) discussed social innovation in corporate philanthropy and told the story of an amazing innovation for people, who are without use of their body, to control a mouse with their eyes. Created for free by Samsung volunteers.

I presented a workshop and a Ted-Talk style presentation. The workshop was “Tell a Powerful Story about your Corporate Community Involvement.” This was a basic communications 101 for community relations and volunteer program managers. My talk was titled “Partnerships: The Exciting New Frontier with Stronger Outcomes.” I explored two deep long term partnerships, one between The Smith Family organization and Medibank in Australia and the other between Children’s Hospital Orange County and Disneyland Resort in the United States. ‘Businesses come in all shapes and sizes, just as people and NGOs do. This provides both opportunities and challenges for partnerships. There has been a lack of mutual respect and understanding in many “partnerships.” These are really “business deals” and not a true partnership. Many businesses have not realized that they can learn from NGOs. Many NGOs follow the money and not necessarily work with businesses in a way that truly advances their mission. Mutually beneficial outcomes should be the hallmark of a good partnership. But this takes more work on the front end, but it is worth it.”

A research working group on Disaster Related Corporate Volunteering was formed at the London IAVE World Conference in 2013. The initiative is led by UPS Foundation President Ed Martinez. An progress update on the work was given at the GCVC Meeting. A Disaster and Emergency Services Dialog was conducted for the conference delegates with representatives from the Swedish Red Cross, Student Volunteer Army (New Zealand), Emergency Management Institute, Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre and IBM (Australia) were panelists. Dr. Kenn Allen, who is conducting the research was moderator.

The 2014 IAVE Global Corporate Volunteering Awards were presented to IBM – Global Volunteer Program Award and BD – Inspiring Practice Award, Congratulations to both companies. Well deserved!

And as the conference ended, old and new friends said goodbye and looked towards reconvening at the 2016 IAVE World Conference to be held in Mexico City.

http://iave2014.org/
Interview with Jeff Hoffman: http://www.iave2014.org/news/87-international-philanthropist-and-guest-speaker-gives-his-thoughts-on-the-volunteering-effort

Posted in Corporate Citizenship, Disaster Response, Volunteering and Service | Leave a comment

The Generational Imperative

Posted on September 14, 2014 by jeffhoffmanassociate

The study of demographics is fascinating and when you take it to the subject of generations, it adds another dimension. The National Association of Corporate Directors’, at their final Directorship 20/20 event of the year, featured Chuck Underwood, the founder and principal of The Generational Imperative. He presented an excellent description of each generation class and the reasoning for their attributes. There are five living generations each with distinct sets of core values. These values in turn dictate how they make career, consumer and lifestyle decisions. The formative years, under the age of 18, mold their core values. A generation begins with the age of 18.

The generations and their essence, is applicable only to the U.S. and Canada although you see other countries using the terms. Other countries have different environmental factors that affect the formative years. The five generations as outlined by Chuck are GI or The Great Generation (born between 1901-26), Silent (1927-45), Boomer (1945-64), GenX (1965-81) and Millennials(1982-96).

“In business, generational influences should become a permanent filter,” said Chuck. “We need a generational gear box where we can shift effectively between the generations in the marketplace, workplace and in the board room. Each generation has unique strengths and weaknesses and we need to plan for both. In recent decades our generational strengths have been out of whack. We are now going into a phase where the Silents are retired, Boomers are leading, Y’s are executing and Millennials are enthusiastically learning and want to make a difference. Over the next decade this will be the scenario and it will prove very productive of the U.S.”

www.genimperative.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Global Health Corps’ Barbara Bush Illuminates a Solutions Based Strategy

Posted on September 5, 2014 by jeffhoffmanassociate

“Global Health Corps pairs intelligent and passionate fellows with organizations that require new thinking and innovative solutions. We provide these young leaders with the tools to remain connected after their fellowship year finishes, deepening their ability to enact change through heightened skills and strong partnerships. We currently place fellows in Burundi, Malawi, Rwanda, Uganda, the United States, and Zambia.” Today, at the USC Center of Philanthropy and Public Policy’s Conversation on Philanthropy and Global Health, I had the opportunity to hear Barbara Bush speak about the organization that she co-founded. The conversation was moderated by Cara Esposito, Executive Director of the Leonetti/O’Connell Family Foundation.

One topic was intergenerational philanthropy and both Barbara and Cara are models of this. Coincidentally I have had connections with both speakers’ parents and grandparents. Points of Light and Business Strengthening America with the former and today’s convener (USC CPPP) and Disney with the latter. A sense of service being passed down through the generations. In fact Barbara became involved with the global health issue on a trip with her parents to Africa for PEPFAR (U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) . She was 20 years old and saw firsthand the devastation that AIDS was taking on the people of Africa and how targeted programs can help. The trip so influenced her that she changed her major from architecture to global health when she returned. Right out of college she took a job at the Red Cross Children’s Hospital in Capetown, South Africa.

Global Health Corps was created from a challenge to youth at a conference. Global health, its many facets, is a daunting issue to tackle. A group from the conference met and wondered if they could find an organization that used something similar to the Teach for America model but in the health arena. Not finding one, they wrote a business plan and created an organization themselves. Today, Barbara is the CEO.

GHC finds people who are under 30 to work for them for a year as a fellow. They have 52 partners that they work with who are great organizations doing service delivery. The fellows are imbedded in the organizations, they ask the right questions, identify the gaps and bring the right people together to address them. This year they had 128 positions and 11,000 applicants. They do want to scale, but maintaining the quality is of paramount importance. The cost of a fellow is $25,000 for the year. This covers all training, travel expenses, living expenses, placement costs, etc. Barbara’s dad gave a “fellowship” to her mom as a Christmas present last year.

The goal is that the fellows will not only affect the quality and delivery of health care during their year, but that they will influence the sector once they leave the fellowship. Building on this, a question came up regarding the development of the new UN Sustainable Development Goals. Barbara said that they have been part of the conversation and feels that their young voices need to be heard as many of her alumni will be responsible for implementing the new goals. Barbara’s compassion, smarts and drive are infectious and the conversation ended with her receiving a standing ovation. www.ghcorps.org www.cppp.usc.edu

Posted in Health, Philanthropy, Youth | Leave a comment

Living on a Dollar a Day

Posted on August 8, 2014 by jeffhoffmanassociate

Last week we had an opportunity to attend a lecture by Professor Thomas A. Nazario at the University of San Francisco School of Law. He is the founder of The Forgotten International. For over 30 years Professor Nazario has worked in a variety of ways to help identify the needs and defend the rights of children, not only here in the United States, but worldwide.

He posed the question “What is Poverty?” He breaks it down into three categories. Relative Poverty is your condition as compared to other people in your proximity. An example of this could be someone who is living below the poverty line here in the U.S. is considered poor compared to most people in the country, but would be considered to have many basic needs that many don’t in other parts of the world. Moderate Poverty are those who have some resources. People living in Extreme Poverty are “living on the edge of life and death.” 2.3 billion people live on less than US$2 a day with 1.1 billion of those living on less than US$1 a day. They live very precarious lives. Famine and disease can easily wipe them out as most survive on sustenance farming. The average life expectancy in poor countries is 37 to 41 years. It is almost double this in affluent countries.

Professor Nazario illustrated the obstacles to poverty alleviation. Geographic isolation, government corruption, demonstrated lack of will, lack of natural resources, climate change, large debt and political instability. While his talk was mostly focused on the problem, he did say that education and jobs are two of the top solutions in helping pull people out of poverty.

He published a book in April called “Living on a Dollar a Day: The Lives and Faces of the World’s Poor.” “Living on a Dollar a Day shares the personal stories of some of the poorest of the poor, honoring their lives, their struggles, and encouraging action in those who can help. In making this beautiful and moving book, a team traveled to four continents, took thousands of photographs, conducted numerous interviews, and researched information on the agencies around the world that strive to help the destitute. The resulting stories and photographs offer a heartrending glimpse into the everyday realities of individuals and families facing extreme poverty.” It truly is a beautiful book, while it makes you sad, it also puts a smile on your face. While many of us talk about international development, support relief efforts and promote education programs, the stories and beautiful photographs by Renee C. Byer makes it personal.

www.theforgottenintl.org

Posted in Economic Development, Education | Leave a comment

Brazil: World Cup, Olympics and CSR

Posted on July 7, 2014 by jeffhoffmanassociate

The world has focused its attention on Brazil this year. Unfortunately not all of what we have learned is positive, but now, that the World Cup has begun the excitement of it all seems to be easing the strikes and other unrest. While the country, the “B” in BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China), experienced a tremendous economic surge, the global economic turndown, plus certain political issues, have slowed the progress of the previous decade. This doesn’t mean that Brazil does not have a bright future, on the contrary, business will continue to be a shining star in this country as it looks towards the 2016 Summer Olympic Games and beyond.

The Conference Board just produced a report titled “Corporate Sustainability in Brazil.” “Brazil has solidified itself as one of the world’s leading emerging economies. With a Gross Domestic Product of US$2.24 trillion in 2013, Brazil ranks as the seventh wealthiest economy.” For CSR, Brazilian companies are much more transparent in their reporting than other emerging economies. They have worked hard to reduce greenhouse gasses by using renewable energy. Growth could be stimulated if more women were to enter the workforce as their percentage of working women is significantly less than most emerging markets. The economic rise, and with it a growing middle class, has caused greater income inequality.

In a week the World Cup will be over. Hopefully some of those stadiums built in far-flung locations will have some other use and the overall economic impact of the games will somehow justify their cost. Infrastructure projects will continue in the march towards the Olympics. The corruption and poverty needs to be addressed. But, with a population of 200 million people (largest in Latin America) , the home to the greatest biodiversity in the world, a vibrant people and businesses that seem to care about sustainability, this emerging market has the potential to solve many of its issues and truly be one of the world’s great countries.

http://www.conference-board.org/publications/publicationdetail.cfmpublicationid=2763

 

Posted in Corporate Citizenship, Economic Development, Harmony | Leave a comment

Collect Impact: Hard Work, but Stronger Outcomes

Posted on June 18, 2014 by jeffhoffmanassociate

Mark Kramer spoke at the Points of Light Conference on Volunteering and Service. I have been a fan of Mark, and his colleague Michael Porter, for many years. Together they launched the Shared Value concept that I am a faithful believer. Mark spoke about Collective Impact, another important concept that really has the power to make change if people spend the time necessary, as well as putting turf wars aside, to really solve a problem.

“Collective Impact is the commitment of a group of actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a complex social problem. In order to create lasting solutions to social problems on a large-scale, organizations — including those in government, civil society, and the business sector — need to coordinate their efforts and work together around a clearly defined goal.”

There are Five Conditions of Collective Impact Success: Common Agenda, Shared Measurement, Mutually Reinforcing Activities, Continuous Communication and Backbone Organization. An example Mark used was the cradle to career approach for a child. If all of the organizations that touch a child’s life, in school, after school, etc. were to coordinate the “care and feeding” of that child, along with the parents of course, “it would actually make it easier as each member of the team knew that their backs were covered and they can focus on the task they are responsible for. This versus the “one class at a time” approach.

His talk really made an impression and “collective impact” became the buzz words of the corporate track at the conference. It’s hard work to do, but the outcomes appear to be well worth the effort.

http://collectiveimpactforum.org/

Posted in Corporate Citizenship, Philanthropy, Volunteering and Service | Leave a comment

China Dream, Multinational Corporations and Philanthropy

Posted on May 26, 2014 by jeffhoffmanassociate

China is in transition. It’s a political economy where politics and business are inextricably linked. There is a momentous shift occurring and it can be unsettling. The economy is downshifting to a much slower growth rate. Most economies go through growth and constriction, but China has had 34 years of continuous growth. China will still have growth of 3 to 5 percent so it is a soft fall. There has been a constant flow of people from rural areas to existing and new cities. In 1990, 25% of Chinese lived in urban areas. In 2013 that number was 53%. While this has contributed to the rise in productivity levels, the economic slowdown will cause an increase in poverty in the cities. Small and medium sized enterprises (SME’s) make up 50% of the GDP and employ 80% of the workers and there are good, solid business laws in place, they just aren’t widely implemented. China is looking to reform financial markets, with an emphasis towards innovation and access to markets. We must remember that in 2000, when China joined the World Trade Organization, they comprised just 1% of the world’s economy. In 2014 it is 15% and continues to rise.

Corruption is a huge problem and it is being addressed selectively. Examples are being made of companies as a warning to others. Often these examples are of common practices and could be considered minor, but as the old Chinese saying goes: “kill the chicken to scare the monkey.” China is a very competitive market between Chinese companies and then when you introduce multinational corporations it can become fierce.

This was the economic picture painted last week at The Conference Board’s Global Social Investing Council meeting in Beijing of which I attended. The meeting was a four days deep dive into the business climate, its opportunities and challenges. A look at the social sector including its structure, organizations, capacity and trends and how businesses are and can create shared value.

Often, nonprofit organizations are called Non-Governmental Organizations or NGOs. It’s a bit more complicated in China as most of the large NGOs are either government entities or are affiliated with the government. An example is the Chinese Red Cross. There is a term for these groups. GONGOS: Government Organized Non-Governmental Organizations. More than 50% of donations go to GONGOS. The other NGOs are either registered as nonprofits, are registered as businesses or are not registered. Nonprofit status is challenging to acquire, so many register as businesses, or if their cause is viewed as controversial, it is most likely not registered at all. Then there are foundations, with the first one being formed in 1981. There are almost 4,000 foundations, a mix of private and public, with combined assets valued about equal to the Ford Foundation in the United States. Approximately 1,600 of these foundations work in education. The Ministry of Civil Affairs was formed in 1978 to oversee and foster the development of the social sector.

There is a great social demand for the services provided by NGOs, yet less than 1% of GDP goes to NGOs. The lack of supply is both problematic and an opportunity for businesses. Issues such as the environment and food safety are hot buttons and could spark civil unrest much more so than economic issues. The big three government priorities are education, poverty alleviation and medical care. Sixty-seven percent of domestic giving goes to these three. Currently 150 million people live on US$1.00, or less, a day. Unfortunately good data is not readily available. What is out there is often not of good quality and is only telling a portion of the story. Better data would help NGOs make a bigger impact with more positive outcomes.

During the four days we gained insight into the CSR, philanthropy and employee engagement initiatives of several companies including The Ford Motor Company, HSBC, United Technologies, Medtronic, FedEx, P&G, Caterpillar, PwC, Intel, KPMG and Johnson & Johnson. These companies have been in China for many years and have highly evolved corporate responsibility programs with some having solid philanthropic activities. As more companies set up operations in China, often their CSR strategy is an afterthought as they are trying to get their business strategy right. I would offer that the CSR strategy should be an overall part of the business strategy and that they will probably do better financially if they have a strong sense of integrity as part of their plan. And while I think a global philanthropic strategy is critical, it must be relevant on the ground. And with China, you can’t look at a China strategy, you need to look at regions, cultural differences, dialects and the issues specific to these differences.

I was pleased to see the strong growth of employee volunteering. Not just the traditional activities of planting trees and filling a backpack, but of skills based activities. Helping NGOs be more effective at meeting their mission. This is critical as there are not the capacity building organizations to help nonprofits grow that we see in many parts of the world. As China is a Confucian based society based of meritocracy, volunteering and other giving programs are adding “heart.” Plus volunteering is a window into the issues.

With climate change comes more natural disasters such as strong storms and floods. There has been a strong effort by government business and NGOs working together around preparedness. In many schools there is teacher training and guides with handbooks for the students to take home and share. And when disasters do occur, such as the Sichuan earthquake, the Ministry of Civil Affairs Department of Disaster Relief oversees aid and reconstruction projects. Three million volunteers responded to the Sichuan earthquake.

With so many new billionaires in China, we followed the much publicized visit by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to gain new signers to the Giving Pledge. They did not see the level of interest that they had hoped. There is an organization of wealthy individuals that is helping to target funding specifically toward environmental issues. There also has been an increase of individual donations primarily through the internet. One huge challenge to individual giving is the tax issue. Unless you are giving to a GONGO or one of the relatively few registered charities, the donations is taxed as many NGOs are registered as businesses.

During the term of Hu Jintao, we often heard about the Harmonious Society initiative. While still in place, it seems to have been supplanted by Xi Jinping with China Dream: Smart, inclusive and sustainable. It’s not just about material things but truly China’s place on the world stage. A place where people’s basic needs are being met. China has a renewed confidence in its view.

China’s emergence in the foreign aid world has been groundbreaking. Giving without conditions. The aid is coming from both the government and NGOS and is primarily going to other parts of Asia and to Africa. While the giving is not a significant part of the GDP, it is not popular amongst citizens as the feeling is that the money should stay in China to address their own needs.

We heard from, and learned about important resources and initiatives from The Asia Foundation, Give2Asia, China Foundation Center, China Development Brief, HandsOn China, Narada Foundation, China Youth Development Foundation, China Youth Development Foundation, China Catalyst, and the Nonprofit Incubator amongst others. There are some innovation programs occurring both with capacity building and with microfinance. For instance, Badi Foundation has an institutional capacity building program in rural and semi-rural areas where they identify people with an aspiration to serve, train them for three months and then help them establish a community based organization including providing seed money.

More educational institutions are investing in this work. An example is the China Philanthropy Research Institute at Beijing Normal University. The Institute is world renowned and led by Wang Zhenyao, a 20 year veteran of the Ministry of Civil Affairs. There he was director of Disaster Relief and then Social Work. He is renowned for his strong support of philanthropic organizations and advocacy for participation of the public in charitable initiatives.

Social enterprises are beginning to form. Microfinance is helping to raise people out of poverty, providing income and stimulating rural economies. More Chinese companies are learning the concept of shared value and corporate social responsibility. Volunteering is on the rise. Multi-National Companies doing business in China are directing efforts focused on critical issues such as the environment and education. While the concepts of philanthropy, volunteering and corporate citizenship are newer to China than many countries, and despite the obstacles, the dramatic growth of the civil sector is both exciting to watch and will be an important component to achieving China’s Dream.

http://www.conference-board.org/regions/region.cfm?regionid=90
http://www.handsonchina.org/
http://en.foundationcenter.org.cn/

Posted in Corporate Citizenship, Disaster Response, Economic Development, Education, Environment, Harmony, Health, Philanthropy, Social Enterprise, Volunteering and Service, Youth | Leave a comment