In the same week that Amazon’s board rejected employee shareholder proposals to address climate change and consider the human rights implications of its technology, there is still good news to be found, right?
MacKenzie Bezos–ex-wife of Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos–announced on May 28 she would be donating at least half of her $37 billion fortune to good causes.
At a time when businesses are still coming to terms with the social responsibility that their platform and power brings, and governments mired in political game-playing and inertia, putting to use the 4% ownership of the tech monolith received in the divorce settlement is cause for celebration, right?
Signing up to the Giving Pledge—an elite group of high net-worth individuals established by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates back in 2010–Bezos joins an influential group of individuals, couples and families who have and continue to donate the majority of their wealth to social causes.
With social responsibility and philanthropy low on Amazon’s priority list until recently, understanding where the recent divorcee may invest her resources is yet to be seen, though her statement made clear it is a decision to be made with “time, effort and care.”
Yet, with over $18 billion to play with, the question of how it will be spent is as important as where. Whilst donating to a specific cause or backing a charity makes for good media fodder, the potential to enable significant social progress (or not) requires scrutiny.
The potential for uniformed giving is one major concern. Whilst supporting food banks and or donating to homeless shelters may alleviate immediate challenges, philanthropists could donate for decades, pouring money onto a symptom of deeper-rooted issues that require investment too.
The temptation to address visible social issues, and allow short-term, story-worthy opportunities to take precedence over the harder, longer-term graft needed to create the systemic and cultural shifts required to address poverty and inequality, in addition to helping those impacted.
Similarly of concern is the sanitized, arms-length approach that philanthropy props up. The privilege and power that giving away billions in spare change affords inherently underpins a “them and us” mentality, and starkly highlights the inequality they’re hoping to address.
With tax subsidies for charitable giving, increasing brand kudos for those influential businesses and individuals who demonstrate their conscience, plus an automatic hall pass from tackling the cultural issues, political landscape or economic injustices that cause the issues they’re looking to address—questions must be asked.
Are you disrupting the root causes of social issues or simply addressing symptoms?
When Amazon announced in 2018 that they were investing $2 billion in homelessness, the world was agog. That amount of money could go a significant way to shifting the needle on homelessness, but on closer inspection, the program didn’t add up.
Whilst investing in education and supporting families impacted by the issue is no bad thing, homelessness is underpinned by housing issues, insecure income and limited public resources with which to house or support people with exacerbated mental health and addiction issues.
Considering Amazon have contributed to pushing house prices up in the cities where they have a significant presence, until recently paid less than a living wage to their manual workers, and shut down a proposal from the Seattle mayor to tax business to raise desperately-needed public funds, Amazon has hindered efforts to address homelessness, and played a part in its rise.
Education also won’t relieve parental poverty, or support the many more single men, abused women, refugees or LGBTQ+ youth impacted by homelessness, so despite the positive press, Amazon’s efforts are more aligned with investing in the future workforce than addressing a pressing social issue.
Far better at investing in root causes are Fair by Design, a collaborative social investment fund focused exclusively on the poverty premium. With people impacted more likely to pay more for goods and services–to the tune of £490 per year according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation–they have already raised and deployed £10 million to social innovation in this area.
Backing organizations like Wagestream which aims to make redundant the payday loan industry, and Switchee, which helps social housing providers find low-cost energy to pass on to tenants in the form of lower bills, these initiatives address the systemic issues as well as help the people most in need.
Are you collectively addressing culture contributors or offering sanitized support?
Purpose marketing is now all the rage, as brands wake up to younger generations demand for conscientious companies to buy from. Gillette is case in point, as it turned from years of commodifying women to challenging toxic masculinity in a single ad.
Calling out the #metoo movement, mansplaining and abusive relationships, the Best a Man Can Be campaign was backed up by a $1 million fund, with the aim of donating to organizations and campaigns that help men achieve their personal best. Set to run over three years, the fund solidifies the brand’s intention to shift the conversation, but questions remain around how.
Toxic masculinity is still little understood as an issue in mainstream society, and its impact and root causes require deeper and sustained examination. It’s not clear where the pot of money will be invested as yet, but what is clear is that three years is a small amount of time when you consider the grassroots work it took to bring sexual harassment to the fore of public consciousness.
For good work here, look instead to organizations like Luminate. An offshoot of the Omidyar network–funded and fuelled by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar back in 2004–the parent organization tackles weighty topics of the likes of reimagining capitalism and beneficial technology.
Luminate dives deeper, not just in the issues it tackles–civic empowerment and digital rights for example–but also in how it tackles. With a mission to build stronger societies, the organization goes beyond funding and creates connections between its investees. Most importantly, the work also goes beyond the systemic, and impacts culture too.
Its support of the Anti-Defamation League is case in point. At a time when anti-Semitic rhetoric is on the rise in Germany, and Britain’s Labour party has been mired in controversy over its mishandling of alleged abuses against Jewish MPs, enabling organizations which challenges, facilitate and change conversation is all important.
Are you strategizing on purpose or tactically manufacturing social change?
The fears around organizations, funders and philanthropists are well versed and well founded, with the need to win PR brownie points central to the public’s concern. The Chan Zuckerberg Institute, set up following the birth of the increasingly beleaguered Facebook founder’s first child, is a prime example.
Out of the couple’s vast fortune, $3 million was channeled into housing grants within the Bay area. Recognizing the astronomical rise in house prices–a median $2 million in the immediate areas around Silicon Valley–tech industry’s success had taken San Francisco’s housing market far beyond gentrification in just over a decade.
Whilst contributing to an issue Facebook had played a considerable part in creating, and promising research into longer-term solutions for the housing crisis the organization was intractably mired in, the money donated was seen as no more than a social sticking plaster. That, and effort to undo some of the increasingly bad press they’re receiving.
Far more impactful is the work of the Lloyd’s Foundation. Recognizing that grants are often only the start of social impact, the Enhance program has allowed them not just to fund but develop the charities and social enterprises they support too.
Providing mentoring, tailored development in everything from service development to strategy and fundraising, since launching, the bank’s corporate social responsibility initiative has helped over 350 organizations, linked up 400 mentors and more specifically, invested £2.6 million in domestic violence and sexual abuse initiatives.
Recognizing the long-term, sensitive and expertise needed to address such issues, its why they’ve backed charities like Mankind, where trained service providers work with men in recovery from sexual abuse. Knowing empowering people requires far more than a bed for a night, its this kind of investment in those who help others that makes a significant difference.
So, what’s the plan, MacKenzie?
