Three concepts from ‘Decolonizing Wealth’ which blew my brain

We need change

Jan 30, 2024

Welcome to the Nest Egg!

Happy Tuesday!

This week…

…we need to say a huge thank you to Ann, Zoe and Clare who took the time to give us such thoughtful advice on raising teenagers.

It never fails to surprise us that the talking points raised in these newsletters are more often than not related to the things which are going on for us outside of work.

No doubt you’re all here for the fundraising wisdom (haha!) but when it comes to connecting, it’s always the stuff going on for us outside of the workplace which garners the most conversation.

This is always a good thing to remember when you’re reaching out to donors / going about your day at work. Keep it real and honest and don’t be afraid to get a little personal - because a two-dimensional professional robot* never won anybody’s trust (and certainly isn’t any fun to hang out with).

*Confident none of you have ever presented as a two-dimensional robot…

white robot on green grass field during daytime

Photo by FRANCESCO TOMMASINI on Unsplash

Today’s article…

…is part book review, part manifesto.

Reading this book, whilst hard, gave so much hope!

It was also edited after Caroline indulged in a lunchtime beer (a particularly delicious fruited sour craft ale to celebrate small girl’s 13th birthday). Mmmmm…

So if there are typos, that’ll be why.

As always, we value your feedback.

Please reply to this email with your thoughts.

Three concepts from ‘Decolonizing Wealth’ which blew my brain

by Caroline Danks

fireworks on focus photography — Photo by Jason Mitrione on Unsplash

Picture description - pink red and white fireworks - I’m hinting that we might need to blow some shit up.

A couple of weeks ago, I hosted a book club.

We read ‘Decolonizing Wealth’ by Edgar Villanueva.

The book is an explanation of the colonial roots of philanthropy told by a native American living and working in the US. It suggests ways in which specifically trusts and foundations can change their practices for the better.

Whilst the whole book is an important and illuminating read, it was the final three chapters for me which hit hard. Their message will stay with me for a very long time and I’ll do my best to share my interpretation of them here:

1. Profit vs people and planet

Most trusts and foundations hold significant funds in investments. For many, their grant making practice involves gifting the interest made across a 12 month period in the forms of grants to other charities.

The investment is preserved so that the interest can be earned and grants can continue to be given.

The massive double standard highlighted by Villanueva is that foundations tend to invest in companies that are focused on profit and profit alone – typically large global conglomerates that rely on extractive and exploitative practices from humans and / or the natural world in order to generate such large excesses.

In essence, the good work done by foundations is cancelled out by the harm they perpetuate through their investment choices.

#faceplant

The book describes a case study of a foundation that decides to re-investment £1bn of its 13bn into less dodgy places. There’s celebration at this, whilst recognising that it’s still not sufficient.

The solution feels obvious right?

To me it feels SO damn simple – foundations just need to re-invest ALL of their funds into much better places.

A basic review their portfolios and decisions on an investment policy that’s ethical (or at least less sketchy) is surely all that’s needed?

· Imagine if EVERY trust and foundation across the world removed all of their investment funds from fossil fuel companies and put them into green energy companies.

· Imagine if they de-invested in Amazon and re-invested in Waterstones (or a consortium of local book sellers).

· Imagine a B-Corp only policy?

How much money would be instantly removed from those which cause active harm?

How much more resource would instantly go towards those aiming for goals which extend beyond just profit?

I appreciate that my description above is somewhat Pollyanna-ish, but as an overall principle, it feels like a no brainer (investment managers – please come at me as to why my idea is unworkable).

Short term reduced income for longer term betterment of human and environmental outcomes?

I think most grant recipients would be able to understand and support such changes, especially if they were given a little warning.

2. The hoarding question

Most trusts and foundations are able to make grants every year because of money invested which gives them an annual return.

However, it seems perplexing that so little of the overall total is ever given away, when we have problems in the world now that need attention now.

Are those financial resources really being used to their fullest potential?

What if there was a mass releasing of funds and a closure of the majority of foundations which operate in this way?

#controversial

According to this article, £12bn is held in UK trusts and foundations. Many foundations give away such a tiny percentage of their overall assets.

For Foundations that accrued their original capital through imperialist and outdated means which are wholly unacceptable by modern standards (think slavery, tobacco, highly addictive non-prescription drugs) it makes even more sense to instigate the winding up process.

Back to the ‘what would happen’ question. Let’s imagine for a moment?

There would be an initial flooding of support into the charitable sector. Support which, if given without strings, could give charities the means to either a) solve the problem they’re trying to fix once and for all or b) given them sufficient capital to invest in other ways to shore up their finances for the future (maybe by investing in other areas more sustainable income generation or investing in their own asset which gives them a return?).

Could our sector operate without trusts and foundations thereafter?

Ultimately, there’s no getting around the fact that first and foremost, all of us need a government which makes adequate provision for its citizens, through well costed, long term planning.

It’s arguable that philanthropy cannot and should not be seen as an alternative to a fit for purpose taxation system.

Depressingly, I can’t see this happening in the UK in the near future.

Reciprocity

The final chapter of Decolonizing Wealth is the most beautiful homage to the author’s own mum - a philanthropist in that she embodied the true meaning of the term. Always seeking to be of service and to provide respite and comfort to all in her community through small act of kindness and grace.

I dare you to read it and not feel amazing about all the goodness which we know exists in humanity (it just feels as if we have to search extra hard for it sometimes).

In describing the behaviour she modelled so beautifully for him as a child, Villanueva sets out a vision where philanthropy is truly reciprocal – meaning that gifts are given and received without an imbalance of power adding a creepy dimension to the whole exchange.

There is wealth to be found beyond money.

There are riches abundant in gifts of time, thought, care, conversation and kindness.

If we add these treasures to our philanthropic practice, we enable more people to participate and more people to benefit (and of course I’m not suggesting we eliminate our major gifts programmes – gifts of all sizes are going to be necessary to make great things happen).

The goal is that no one person gets to feel more valuable than another.

Not going to lie here, as a young fundraiser, hungry to meet my targets, there were times I was scathing of gifts in kind. I dismissed donations of practical items and volunteering of time as being somewhat inferior to the monetary gifts I was so desperately seeking.

I was wrong.

In a world where only those who can amass significant personal wealth throughout their working lives can afford to enjoy a comfortable retirement, we need to reimagine a future where money isn’t the only currency.

Where people gift their time, resources and skills to those in need and where their generosity is reciprocated.

Unlike a government which is actually honest about the true cost of properly caring for all of its citizens and makes long term plans accordingly, I will allow a different vision for kinder, more inclusive and service driven to exist in my mind.

Let’s hold onto hope together. Whatever the future may bring.