Philanthropy isn’t for profit

By Felix Salmon
June 15, 2011
Daniel Altman is an economist who glories in the title of Director of Thought Leadership at Dalberg, and he's now written a paper which essentially seeks to eradicate the distinction between social impact and profit altogether

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Dalberg is an international consultancy which explains, on its About page, that “we value social impact above profit but recognize that a sustainable business model is essential to our success”. Makes a certain amount of sense: if you want to do a lot of good in the world, it’s helpful not to be having to beg for money all the time. And of course that mission makes it much easier for Dalberg to charge huge sums of money and help its owners on their path to wealth and fortune.

Daniel Altman is an economist who glories in the title of Director of Thought Leadership at Dalberg, and he’s now written a paper which essentially seeks to eradicate the distinction between social impact and profit altogether. Social impact, he says, along with similar ideas like double bottom lines or corporate social responsibility (CSR) and creating shared value (CSV),

are inefficient workarounds or substitutes that should ultimately lead back to a single bottom line – profit – with a long time horizon and rational expectations. Executives targeting profitability with a sufficiently long time horizon will make investments that generate social benefits because these investments serve the interests of their companies. Moreover, companies that take this approach will generate social benefits more efficiently and sustainably than those using typical strategies for CSR or CSV.

Altman’s paper cites Philanthrocapitalism. That book’s author, Matthew Bishop, has a similar essay this week in the Economist, comparing IBM to the Carnegie Corporation and concluding that the former has done more for society than the latter.

All of this is profoundly silly. Both Altman and Bishop are all in favor of companies engaging in philanthropic initiatives, although only Altman goes so far as to say that they have to be justifiable on a P&L basis. He writes:

If companies view social initiatives as cost centers rather than contributors to profitability, then these initiatives are likely to become procyclical, being cut in downturns and then reinstated when balance sheets are flush again. Their budgets will be arbitrary rather than being linked to a rate of return. As investments expected to be competitive and profitable, by contrast, social initiatives will enjoy more durable support from executives and become a core part of corporate operations.

The problem here is that Altman’s idea of profitability turns on the idea that “the time horizon for a company’s decision-making should be infinite” — and if he’d ever spent any time running a for-profit company, he’d know full well that in downturns, corporate time horizons are anything but. Even the most enlightened CEO will increase the discount rate with which she calculates distant profits when she runs into short-term trouble — and if you’re calculating philanthropic returns on an NPV basis over an infinite time horizon, a small tweak to the discount rate can easily mean the difference between profitability and being axed.

But the point in the paper at which Altman becomes a complete laughingstock to any genuine capitalist is in his third hypothetical of how corporate philanthropy can be profitable:

The chief executive of a major electronics manufacturer is deciding whether to develop a line of low-cost smart phones for sale at a small margin in poor countries. This investment would cost $100 million and generate an expected rate of return of only 2 percent. However, the chief executive is convinced that the investment is a moral one, and she would get substantial personal satisfaction from making it. Her salary is due to increase by $3 million during the period in which the investment would take place, but she will accept a raise of only $1 million if the investment goes forward. With this additional factor in mind, the expected rate of return on the investment doubles to 4 percent; it is now more competitive with the other investment opportunities in the company’s portfolio.

I had to read this a few times to be sure I understood it right: apparently the CEO of a major electronics manufacturer is going to take a $2 million pay cut just so that she can get “substantial personal satisfaction” from selling phones in poor countries. I can just imagine her presentation to the board: “we’ve created this wonderful line of phones which is profitable, but not very profitable, so in order to make it reach an adequate IRR, I’ve decided to ask you to pay me $2 million less.”

Bishop’s article doesn’t have anything quite that ridiculous, but it is based on an equally silly premise: that we can learn something useful from comparing IBM to the Carnegie Corporation, just because they were both founded 100 years ago:

Comparing the records of those giants of 20th-century American capitalism—or “philanthrocapitalism”—can shed light on a question that is keenly debated today: whether philanthropy or business is more effective at “Making the World Work Better”, to borrow the title of the book celebrating IBM’s centenary.

Well, no, actually, it can’t. Bishop’s conclusion is that Carnegie wins the first 50 years while IBM wins the second 50 years and the prize. But you’d want Carnegie to be front-loaded, since that’s how philanthropy works best. Bishop admits as much:

100 years is too old for a philanthropic foundation…

Many of today’s philanthropists aim, as Carnegie did, to give away all their money by the time they die, or at least put a time limit on the lifespan of their foundation after their death. The Gates Foundation will have to be wound down 50 years after the second of Bill and Melinda Gates dies.

On top of that, Bishop’s choice of IBM exhibits massive survivorship bias. The Carnegie Corporation was the only mega-philanthropy in the world in 1911: Bishop has chosen 100% of the big philanthropies of the day to see how they fared. But IBM was just one of thousands of companies founded that year, and it’s almost certainly the only one which could even come close to giving Carnegie a run for its money in this particularly weird competition. Carnegie never aspired, when he created his foundation, to outperform every single corporation ever to be founded. Instead, he simply aspired to make the world a much better place, which is exactly what he did.

The good news here is that these attempts by Altman and Bishop to elide the distinction between capitalism and philanthropy — to make rapacious executives feel good about being greedy — are such transparent failures that with any luck they’ll mark the turning point at which people do good to do good, rather than simply declaring that the best way they can do good is to chase profit as zealously as possible. You can’t just invest money in the stock market and declare it the best way to do good in the world, any more than you can start an arms or cigarette manufacturer and claim that your pursuit of profits is the best way to improve global welfare. And I must admit it’s a little depressing to find the likes of Altman and Bishop helping the global plutocracy think otherwise.

Comments
11 comments so far

There are so few anonymous donors in this world. Try it: make a cash donation to a charity without taking credit for it, and without mentioning it to anyone. Drop that tip in the tip jar when no one is looking, Felix…now do it every day.

Quid pro quo.

Posted by GRRR | Report as abusive

So, what they are saying is that it is proper to do the right thing only when it is in your interest.

Applied to a moral dilemma, let’s say my boss commits a crime and I have proof. I should NOT turn him in because to do so would lower my profit and reduce my ability to volunteer by disrupting my job and cash flow.

The crime is already done, after all, so surely society profits more by my not turning him in. And what of my poor co-workers and their families?

Sounds like Wall Street Logic to me!

Posted by decorbett182 | Report as abusive

Felix, I’m going to assume that calling someone a “laughingstock” is your way of trying to engage them in debate. That’s fine.

If you truly care about for-profit companies’ ability to create social benefits, then perhaps you should try to distill what’s useful in our paper, “The Single Bottom Line,” rather than caricaturing it.

For example, the paper clearly acknowledges that it’s impractical for any executive to have an infinite time horizon. The very next line is the following:

“To be sure, most companies have limited time and resources for making decisions, so they cannot handicap every potential risk and opportunity that may arise between now and the end of time.”

The paper also recognizes that some companies may wish to engage in philanthropy without any view to how it might contribute to their own bottom lines. These are not profit-maximizing companies, so they should have (at least tacit) shareholder approval for deciding to pursue multiple objectives at the expense of profits.

We think that using the single bottom line with a long (not infinite) time horizon will actually encourage profit-maximizing companies to invest in more social initiatives, since they’ll see how those initiatives can help their profitability in the long term.

Best regards,
Daniel Altman

Posted by DanielAltman | Report as abusive

“philanthrocapitalism?” I feel a little nauseous.

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive

Does it really have to be so Black & White?

I feel many of the arguments Daniel conveys are in line with a very inspiring philanthropist who I’m sure has made some money too – Dan Pallotta… the man behind: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_th e_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wro ng

Anyone who proposes to do good for society – whether for their ego or for money etc. – should be encouraged.

I have founded an organisation that encourages volunteering: http://www.Power-of-You.org. People will volunteer for all sorts of reasons and even if it is in order to boost their CV, as long as people in Africa are benefitting from their time then I feel it is a win win situation.

My ‘competition’ so to speak are other organisations who often charge grossly inflated prices for people to volunteer. If people are willing to pay this money and they help the underprivileged, it is again a win win situation. The agency prospers, the volunteer settles their moral compass and boosts their CV and most importantly, there is hopefully some positive social impact from there volunteering.

I propose that all forms of Philanthropy are to society’s profit… if companies or individuals can prosper from it then good on them. There are many easier forms of making money without giving back to society.

And yes… using laughing stock is a little too much.

Best,

Tom
Founder of http://www.Power-of-You.org

Posted by Power-of-you | Report as abusive

Does it really have to be so Black & White?

I feel many of the arguments Daniel conveys are in line with a very inspiring philanthropist who I’m sure has made some money too – Dan Pallotta… the man behind: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_th e_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wro ng

Anyone who proposes to do good for society – whether for their ego or for money etc. – should be encouraged.

I have founded an organisation that encourages volunteering: http://www.Power-of-You.org. People will volunteer for all sorts of reasons and even if it is in order to boost their CV, as long as people in Africa are benefitting from their time then I feel it is a win win situation.

My ‘competition’ so to speak are other organisations who often charge grossly inflated prices for people to volunteer. If people are willing to pay this money and they help the underprivileged, it is again a win win situation. The agency prospers, the volunteer settles their moral compass and boosts their CV and most importantly, there is hopefully some positive social impact from there volunteering.

I propose that all forms of Philanthropy are to society’s profit… if companies or individuals can prosper from it then good on them. There are many easier forms of making money without giving back to society.

And yes… using laughing stock is a little too much.

Best,

Tom
Founder of http://www.Power-of-You.org

Posted by Power-of-you | Report as abusive

Does it really have to be so Black & White?

I feel many of the arguments Daniel conveys are in line with a very inspiring philanthropist who I’m sure has made some money too – Dan Pallotta… the man behind: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_th e_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wro ng

Anyone who proposes to do good for society – whether for their ego or for money etc. – should be encouraged.

I have founded an organisation that encourages volunteering: http://www.Power-of-You.org. People will volunteer for all sorts of reasons and even if it is in order to boost their CV, as long as people in Africa are benefitting from their time then I feel it is a win win situation.

My ‘competition’ so to speak are other organisations who often charge grossly inflated prices for people to volunteer. If people are willing to pay this money and they help the underprivileged, it is again a win win situation. The agency prospers, the volunteer settles their moral compass and boosts their CV and most importantly, there is hopefully some positive social impact from there volunteering.

I propose that all forms of Philanthropy are to society’s profit… if companies or individuals can prosper from it then good on them. There are many easier forms of making money without giving back to society.

And yes… using laughing stock is a little too much.

Best,

Tom
Founder of http://www.Power-of-You.org

Posted by Power-of-you | Report as abusive

I carry on listening to the rumor talk about getting free online grant applications so I have been looking around for the most excellent site to get one. Could you tell me please, where could i find some?

Kimree is a world-leading e-cigarette company. According to Frost & Sullivan, Kimree was the second largest e-cigarette designer and manufacturer in the world in terms of both revenues and production volume in 2013. The Company designs and produces a broad range of e-cigarette products, including disposable e-cigarettes, rechargeable e-cigarettes and e-cigarette accessories. Visit http://www.kimree.com/ for more.

It’s genuinely very complicated in this busy life to listen news on Television, therefore I just use web for that purpose, and obtain the latest news.

Excellent blog here! Also your web site loads up fast! What web host are you using? Can I get your affiliate link to your host? I wish my site loaded up as quickly as yours lol

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/