Introduction by Croakey: Philanthropy has long been valuable to society; however, it is important to consider philanthropic giving and its power on international agendas with a critical eye, according to PhD candidate Giorgia Dalla Libera Marchiori.
“Not all philanthropic giving is the same,” writes Dalla Libera Marchiori below, who is exploring the role of philanthropy in health research and its implications for the achievement of planetary health equity at the Planetary Health Equity Hothouse, Australian National University.
Giorgia Dalla Libera Marchiori writes:
Concerns about philanthropy’s influence on international agendas were raised at last month’s Commerce, Economy, Trade and Public Health Conference – hosted by the Public Health Association of Australia and VicHealth.
While the power of corporations and financial institutions over public health priorities were the main focus of the conference and indeed deserve our attention, we cannot neglect to consider the powerful position of big philanthropy.
In a world experiencing growing social inequities, ill-health and environmental degradation, asking where the wealthy are putting their money is not just a legitimate question, it is an urgent one.
It is important to put a spotlight on philanthropic foundations as important but often overlooked players in the interconnection between the current economic system and public health.
Doing good?
Most of us are probably familiar with big philanthropy – rich people giving money to ‘good’ causes. Examples include the Gates Foundation committing USD$100 million to help small farmers to adapt to climate change, and Bloomberg Philanthropies committing USD$1 billion to John Hopkins University to cover the tuitions of medical and public health students.
However, as altruistic as this giving may be, there is a clear tension between claimed goals and where the money comes from to achieve them.
The extreme capital accumulation that feeds big philanthropy is the result of an economic system that benefits a few individuals and corporations while fuelling poverty, non-communicable diseases and climate change – issues both government and philanthropy then need to address.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, philanthropists like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet saw an increase of their net wealth between 32 to 74 percent, while many people around the world struggled to keep their jobs and stay afloat.
This extreme gap between rich and poor leads to countless health inequities, like increased mental health issues and reduced access to healthcare, for the same people wealthy philanthropic foundations claim to work for.
Both feet in the door
The Gates Foundation sits at the board of several global health initiatives, such as GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, and is the second major funder of the World Health Organization. The Rockefeller Foundation has organised numerous meetings, since the early 20th century, at its Bellagio Centre with high level policy makers and international institutions, such as the World Bank.
In Australia, the lobby efforts of Philanthropy Australia resulted in the government commitment to work on a strategy to double philanthropic giving by 2030.
In May 2024, the Productivity Commission, appointed to provide recommendations, published the Future Foundations for giving report.
While the Commission outlines criticisms around philanthropic accountability and power, which emerged from the consultations, it also dismisses them far too quickly.
Overlooking the elephant in the room
The report conceives philanthropy very broadly as “the giving of money, time, skills, assets or lending voice to people and communities that would otherwise receive lower quality, or have less access to, goods and services”.
It puts emphasis on the need to strengthen giving to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, reforming the system that allow organisations to receive tax-deductible donations, and having better data collection mechanisms especially when it comes to corporate donations.
This all sounds great, but the focus of the recommendations is mostly on the receiving charities and the donations by average citizens. In fact, despite the title, ‘philanthropic foundations’ – which in Australia are referred to as private ancillary funds – are not a major focus of the report even though they hold $12.1 billion in total assets.
Private ancillary funds are defined as “trusts established for private philanthropic giving and are largely used by family groups or businesses”, which get tax deductions upfront compared to when those funds will actually be used to benefit society and communities on the ground.
Tax deduction is discussed in the report as potentially problematic for the government, who gets less income that could be used to provide essential services. However, there is no specific reflection or distinction made between people who donate directly to charities operating on the ground and those who donate to private ancillary funds.
Since this latter type of donation has been questioned as a potential pathway for wealthy individuals to maintain their wealth and reduce their taxes, it deserves proper reflection.
While the Commission reports possible misalignments between societal needs and the interests of big donors, it also argues that those will still exist even without tax deductions.
The Commission misses the point here. In fact, while misalignments may exist regardless government’s tax interventions, shouldn’t the government prioritise social needs by taxing wealth rather than facilitating donors’ interests through tax-cuts?
When it comes to the lack of accountability for philanthropic foundations, the Commission also seems to wash the government’s hands by saying that fundees and civil society can make organisations accountable even when there is no other accountability mechanism.
This argument ignores that reporting is done in-house and inconsistently between foundations, making it difficult for civil society to track what is happening. For corporate giving, the Commission recommends better public reporting mechanisms, but they suggest aggregated data which does not improve transparency on single organisations’ activities.
Moreover, even if transparency was not an issue, accountability becomes the burden of the receivers, completely ignoring the fact that many organisations depend on those private fundings making it difficult for them to criticise funders openly.
Moving forward
While philanthropic giving is something valuable to society, not all philanthropic giving is the same.
The government should ask what type of giving they should promote and facilitate, and what type should be put into question or at least not facilitated by government policies.
Shouldn’t we ask what is the role of private ancillary funds in maintaining the unhealthy and inequitable system we live in? Shouldn’t we evaluate private ancillary funds based on where their investments sit? Are they investing in fossil fuels, unhealthy foods and drinks, weapons? If so, should the government support them through tax-cuts?
With elections coming up next year, it is not clear if, when or how the recommendation would be implemented.
However, considering that philanthropic organisations in Australia seem to have started questioning some of their traditional practices, there is a window of opportunity for policy makers to take the time to reflect on the type of giving that should be facilitated by the government, and in which other ways extreme wealth should be redistributed.
About the author
Giorgia Dalla Libera Marchiori is a health scientist by training and a systems thinker by passion. She previously worked in infectious diseases research and with different non-governmental organisations in global health and sustainability.
She is currently doing her PhD at the Planetary Health Equity Hothouse, at the Australian National University, investigating health philanthropy’s research agenda and its implications for the achievement of planetary health equity.
See Croakey’s archive of articles on the commercial determinants of health.
