Small Change: Why Business Won't Save the WorldA powerful critique of a seemingly beneficial trend that is actually undermining the effectiveness of philanthropyWritten by an insider -- a former official with several high-profile nonprofitsCo-published with the prominent New York think tank Demos A new movement is afoot that promises to save the world by bringing the magic of the market to philanthropy. Nonprofits should be run like businesses, its adherents say, and businesses can find new sources of revenue by marketing goods and services that benefit society. Dubbed OC philanthrocapitalism, OCO its supporters believe that business principles can and should be the primary drivers of social transformation. What could be wrong with that?Plenty, argues, former Ford Foundation director Michael Edwards. In this hard-hitting, controversial expose he marshals a wealth of evidence to show just how far short the promise of philnthrocapitalism has fallen, and why the whole concept is fundamentally flawed. Some business practices can be beneficial to nonprofits, and itOCOs definitely a good thing that the for-profit sector is developing a social conscience. Edwards carefully specifies when businesses and business thinking can help. But to really get at the root causes of the systemic problems most nonprofits wrestle withOCohunger, poverty, disease, violenceOCorequires a completely different way of operating. Social transformation demands cooperation rather than competition, collective action more than individual effort, and values patient, long-term support for solutions over short-term results. Philanthrocapitalism concentrates power in the hands of a few major players, mirroring the very inequities civil organizations should be trying to ameliorate. With a vested interest in the status quo it shies away from fundamental change. At most all it can promise is valuable but limited advances: small change. Ultimately, Edwards argues that the use of business thinking can and does corrupt civil society. ItOCOs time to differentiate the two and re-assert the independence of global citizen action." |
Contents
Irrational Exuberance The Rise of Philanthrocapitalism | 1 |
The Good the Bad and the Ugly When Business Thinking Advances Social Changeand When It Doesnt | 16 |
Missing Evidence The Change That Philanthrocapitalism Doesnt Make | 35 |
The High Cost of Mission Drift Why Human Values and Market Values Dont Mix | 63 |
The Difference That Makes the Difference The Decline of Philanthrocapitalism and the Rise of Citizen Philanthropy | 86 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
accountability achieve activists approaches benefits Bill Gates Billionaires Blended Value Bobby Shriver bottom line broad-based business thinking chapter Charity citizen action civil society civil society activism civil society groups claim collective action companies competition corporate social responsibility costs create debate democracy democratic economic effective efficient example experience for-profit funds Gates Foundation global goals government and civil ideas increasing individuals inequality institutions investment Jeff Skoll long-term ment metrics microcredit microfinance million nonprofits numbers people’s percent philan philanthrocapitalism philanthrocapitalists poor poverty produced profit questions revenue save the world says sector Skoll social and environmental social and political social change social enterprise social entrepreneurs Social Entrepreneurship social impact Social Innovation social mission social movements social problems social transformation structures successful things throcapitalists tion tive United venture philanthropy W. K. Kellogg Foundation York