Comments on: The Risk of Cooperation

By: Jodi Segal

Jodi Segal — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:49:00 +0000

I think that there should be a different standard for advocacy groups than non-advocacy groups. If you are an advocate, then there is the possibility of impropriety and for the appearance of impropriety, both which can impact the mission.

My advocacy organization has a policy about soliciting and accepting corporate gifts. We both acknowledge the value and have goals surrounding corporate fundraising, while abiding by a policy to limit the amount of corporate money we will accept in total and per donor. We also have subjective criteria regarding conflict of interest.

By: carrieb

carrieb — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:15:14 +0000

When people questioned William Booth about his willingness to take money from certain sources to support the nascent Salvation Army, he said, “The only problem with tainted money is tain’t enough of it.” Most fund sources for most charitable causes are, in some way, “tainted.” And taint never enough money. I’m with Booth.

By: Devon Kearney

Devon Kearney — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:43:51 +0000

I have never been in a position to get corporate money, and am somewhat speaking out of ignorance, but fortunately I can hedge: I’m of two minds on this. On the one hand, I’m inclined to think that all money is value neutral, and putting tainted money to good use isn’t any different from putting “pure” money to good use (and after all, many of the institutions that now fund us “purist” organizations were founded by corporate titans no less anathema to our missions in their day).

On the other hand, from what I understand, corporate giving is more directly connected to the PR and other needs of the company – is less purely altruistic than other giving. And in that sense, there could be a problem if an organization had too large a share of its income coming from one corporation or industry. This is true especially to the degree that they are recurring gifts, rather than one-off event purchases, or perhaps donations of land, in this case. It’s easy to imagine how substantive decisions could be swayed, even unconsciously, when they jeopardize a significant chunk of the budget for the next year. Conversely, if my eco-org could say ‘yeah, we took money from BP, but not so much that we couldn’t forego that money if it compromises our integrity,’ then I wouldn’t be so worried.

So I guess where I land is that I’m no teetotaler on corporate money, but I think that we should all imbibe it responsibly.

By: Christopher Barry

Christopher Barry — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:27:36 +0000

I think the key considerations are mission and risk. Does the business/individual giving a gift create a conflict with your mission?
That’s a no-brainer.

It’s impossible to break out the crystal ball and anticipate negative press (for those of you working with celebrities as well as taking corporate gifts) but I’m sure that you can identify potential donor sources that are higher-risk.

This needs to be considered (while the individual organization or development person is salivating over a gift that helps them reach revenue requirements of their organization in a down economy).

By: Jim Mueller

Jim Mueller — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:14:23 +0000

I agree with you, Roger. This is a tough decision and will be argued passionately by both sides forever. But, in this complex world, the purist road can become a road to isolation. I’ve worked with clients on this issue and have spoken at conferences on it as well. The points that I emphasize are, first, that nonprofits must recognize that any corporate association with a nonprofit is part of their business strategy, not charity. This is a business deal, so know your boundaries, draft policies, and only do it if your constituents are better served because of it. Do your homework, know your prospective partner as good as or better than their stockholders. Be very clear about what is expected and what you gain for your constuents so you have a response to your detractors. Stay on top of the relationship. And don’t ignore the ethical considerations–don’t bend your mission.

By: Andrew Davis

Andrew Davis — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 12:21:04 +0000

Will the people complaining ever donate close to the amount that BP has given these organizations, and will possibly given in the future? It’s extremely doubtful.

Every action a non-profit takes will ultimately come under scrutiny of donors, but that’s no reason to forgo huge gifts from corporate sponsors — especially when incidents like the oil spill are incredibly rare and impossible to predict.

These types of donors have their own agenda (anti-business). They care less about the good that a donation from BP did for these organizations, and more about it coming from a big corporation.

The best thing that groups like The Nature Conservancy can do is play-up the impact of BP’s donations, and talk about how it has strengthened their organization and amplified the impact of gifts from individuals.