40 billionaires giving away fortunes to save the world
Slide show:
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstori ... ailsignout
PRIVATE PHILANTHROPY
Giving Away Your Billion
Recently I’ve been reading the Giving Pledge letters. These are the letters that rich people write when they join Warren Buffett’s Giving Pledge campaign. They take the pledge, promising to give away most of their wealth during their lifetime, and then they write letters describing their giving philosophy.
“I suppose I arrived at my charitable commitment largely through guilt,” writes George B. Kaiser, an oil and finance guy from Oklahoma, who is purported to be worth about $8 billion. “I recognized early on that my good fortune was not due to superior personal character or initiative so much as it was to dumb luck. I was blessed to be born in an advanced society with caring parents. So, I had the advantage of both genetics … and upbringing.”
Kaiser decided he was “morally bound to help those left behind by the accident of birth.” But he understood the complexities: “Though almost all of us grew up believing in the concept of equal opportunity, most of us simultaneously carried the unspoken and inconsistent ‘dirty little secret’ that genetics drove much of accomplishment so that equality was not achievable.”
His reading of modern brain research, however, led to the conclusion that genetic endowments can be modified by education, if you can get to kids early. Kaiser has directed much of his giving to early childhood education.
Most of the letter writers started poor or middle class. They don’t believe in family dynasties and sometimes argue that they would ruin their kids’ lives if they left them a mountain of money. Schools and universities are the most common recipients of their generosity, followed by medical research and Jewish cultural institutions. A ridiculously disproportionate percentage of the Giving Pledge philanthropists are Jewish.
Older letter writers have often found very specific niches for their giving — fighting childhood obesity in Georgia. Younger givers, especially the tech billionaires, are vague and less thoughtful.
A few letters burn with special fervor. These people generally try to solve a problem that touched them directly. Dan Gilbert, who founded Quicken Loans, had a son born with neurofibromatosis, a genetic condition that affects the brain. Gordon Gund went fully blind in 1970. Over the ensuing 43 years, he and his wife helped raise more than $600 million for blindness research.
The letters set off my own fantasies. What would I do if I had a billion bucks to use for good? I’d start with the premise that the most important task before us is to reweave the social fabric. People in disorganized neighborhoods need to grow up enmeshed in the loving relationships that will help them rise. The elites need to be reintegrated with their own countrymen.
Only loving relationships transform lives, and such relationships can be formed only in small groups. Thus, I’d use my imaginary billion to seed 25-person collectives around the country.
A collective would be a group of people who met once a week to share and discuss life. Members of these chosen families would go on retreats and celebrate life events together. There would be “clearness committees” for members facing key decisions.
The collectives would be set up for people at three life stages. First, poor kids between 16 and 22. They’d meet in the homes of adult hosts and help one another navigate the transition from high school to college.
Second, young adults across classes between 23 and 26. This is a vastly under-institutionalized time of life when many people suffer a Telos Crisis. They don’t know why they are here and what they are called to do. The idea would be to bring people across social lines together with hosts and mentors, so that they could find a purpose and a path.
Third, successful people between 36 and 40. We need a better establishment in this country. These collectives would identify the rising stars in local and national life, and would help build intimate bonds across parties and groups, creating a baseline of sympathy and understanding these people could carry as they rose to power.
The collectives would hit the four pressure points required for personal transformation:
Heart: By nurturing deep friendships, they would give people the secure emotional connections they need to make daring explorations.
Hands: Members would get in the habit of performing small tasks of service and self-control for one another, thus engraving the habits of citizenship and good character.
Head: Each collective would have a curriculum, a set of biographical and reflective readings, to help members come up with their own life philosophies, to help them master the intellectual virtues required for public debate.
Soul: In a busy world, members would discuss fundamental issues of life’s purpose, so that they might possess the spiritual true north that orients a life.
The insular elites already have collectives like this in the form of Skull and Bones and such organizations. My billion would support collectives across society, supporting the homes and retreats where these communities would happen, offering small slush funds they could use for members in crisis.
Now all I need is a hedge fund to get started.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/opin ... &te=1&_r=0
Recently I’ve been reading the Giving Pledge letters. These are the letters that rich people write when they join Warren Buffett’s Giving Pledge campaign. They take the pledge, promising to give away most of their wealth during their lifetime, and then they write letters describing their giving philosophy.
“I suppose I arrived at my charitable commitment largely through guilt,” writes George B. Kaiser, an oil and finance guy from Oklahoma, who is purported to be worth about $8 billion. “I recognized early on that my good fortune was not due to superior personal character or initiative so much as it was to dumb luck. I was blessed to be born in an advanced society with caring parents. So, I had the advantage of both genetics … and upbringing.”
Kaiser decided he was “morally bound to help those left behind by the accident of birth.” But he understood the complexities: “Though almost all of us grew up believing in the concept of equal opportunity, most of us simultaneously carried the unspoken and inconsistent ‘dirty little secret’ that genetics drove much of accomplishment so that equality was not achievable.”
His reading of modern brain research, however, led to the conclusion that genetic endowments can be modified by education, if you can get to kids early. Kaiser has directed much of his giving to early childhood education.
Most of the letter writers started poor or middle class. They don’t believe in family dynasties and sometimes argue that they would ruin their kids’ lives if they left them a mountain of money. Schools and universities are the most common recipients of their generosity, followed by medical research and Jewish cultural institutions. A ridiculously disproportionate percentage of the Giving Pledge philanthropists are Jewish.
Older letter writers have often found very specific niches for their giving — fighting childhood obesity in Georgia. Younger givers, especially the tech billionaires, are vague and less thoughtful.
A few letters burn with special fervor. These people generally try to solve a problem that touched them directly. Dan Gilbert, who founded Quicken Loans, had a son born with neurofibromatosis, a genetic condition that affects the brain. Gordon Gund went fully blind in 1970. Over the ensuing 43 years, he and his wife helped raise more than $600 million for blindness research.
The letters set off my own fantasies. What would I do if I had a billion bucks to use for good? I’d start with the premise that the most important task before us is to reweave the social fabric. People in disorganized neighborhoods need to grow up enmeshed in the loving relationships that will help them rise. The elites need to be reintegrated with their own countrymen.
Only loving relationships transform lives, and such relationships can be formed only in small groups. Thus, I’d use my imaginary billion to seed 25-person collectives around the country.
A collective would be a group of people who met once a week to share and discuss life. Members of these chosen families would go on retreats and celebrate life events together. There would be “clearness committees” for members facing key decisions.
The collectives would be set up for people at three life stages. First, poor kids between 16 and 22. They’d meet in the homes of adult hosts and help one another navigate the transition from high school to college.
Second, young adults across classes between 23 and 26. This is a vastly under-institutionalized time of life when many people suffer a Telos Crisis. They don’t know why they are here and what they are called to do. The idea would be to bring people across social lines together with hosts and mentors, so that they could find a purpose and a path.
Third, successful people between 36 and 40. We need a better establishment in this country. These collectives would identify the rising stars in local and national life, and would help build intimate bonds across parties and groups, creating a baseline of sympathy and understanding these people could carry as they rose to power.
The collectives would hit the four pressure points required for personal transformation:
Heart: By nurturing deep friendships, they would give people the secure emotional connections they need to make daring explorations.
Hands: Members would get in the habit of performing small tasks of service and self-control for one another, thus engraving the habits of citizenship and good character.
Head: Each collective would have a curriculum, a set of biographical and reflective readings, to help members come up with their own life philosophies, to help them master the intellectual virtues required for public debate.
Soul: In a busy world, members would discuss fundamental issues of life’s purpose, so that they might possess the spiritual true north that orients a life.
The insular elites already have collectives like this in the form of Skull and Bones and such organizations. My billion would support collectives across society, supporting the homes and retreats where these communities would happen, offering small slush funds they could use for members in crisis.
Now all I need is a hedge fund to get started.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/opin ... &te=1&_r=0
No, You Can’t Feel Sorry for Everyone
The idea of empathy for all ignores the limits of human psychology.
The world seems to be getting more empathetic. Americans donate to charity at record rates. People feel the pain of suffering in geographically distant countries brought to our attention by advances in communications and transportation. Violence, seen on historical timescales, is decreasing.
The great modern humanitarian project of expanding the scope of our empathy to include the entire human race seems to be working. Our in-group (those we choose to include in our inner circle and to spend our energies on) is growing, and our out-group (everybody else) shrinking. But there’s a wrinkle in this perfect picture: Our instinctive tendency to categorize the world into “us” and “them” is difficult to overcome. It is in our nature to favor helping in-group members like friends, family, or fellow citizens, and to neglect or even punish out-group members. Even as some moral circles expand, others remain stubbornly fixed, or even contract: Just think of Democrats and Republicans, Sunnis and Shiites, Duke and North Carolina basketball fans.
The endpoint of the liberal humanitarian project, which is universal empathy, would mean no boundary between in-group and out-group. In aiming for this goal, we must fight our instincts. That is possible, to a degree. Research confirms that people can strengthen their moral muscles and blur the divide between in-group and out-group. Practicing meditation, for example, can increase empathy, improving people’s ability to decode emotions from people’s facial expressions1 and making them more likely to offer a chair2 to someone with crutches. Simply increasing people’s beliefs in the malleability of empathy increases the empathy they express toward ideologically and racially dissimilar others.3 And when all else fails, people respond to financial gain. My co-authors and I have shown that introducing monetary incentives for accurate perspective-taking increased Democrats’ and Republicans’ ability to understand each other and to believe that political resolutions were possible.4
But these exercises can take us only so far. In fact, there is a terrible irony in the assumption that we can ever transcend our parochial tendencies entirely. Social scientists have found that in-group love and out-group hate originate from the same neurobiological basis, are mutually reinforcing, and co-evolved—because loyalty to the in-group provided a survival advantage by helping our ancestors to combat a threatening out-group. That means that, in principle, if we eliminate out-group hate completely, we may also undermine in-group love. Empathy is a zero-sum game.
More...
http://nautil.us//issue/51/limits/no-yo ... 8-60760513
The idea of empathy for all ignores the limits of human psychology.
The world seems to be getting more empathetic. Americans donate to charity at record rates. People feel the pain of suffering in geographically distant countries brought to our attention by advances in communications and transportation. Violence, seen on historical timescales, is decreasing.
The great modern humanitarian project of expanding the scope of our empathy to include the entire human race seems to be working. Our in-group (those we choose to include in our inner circle and to spend our energies on) is growing, and our out-group (everybody else) shrinking. But there’s a wrinkle in this perfect picture: Our instinctive tendency to categorize the world into “us” and “them” is difficult to overcome. It is in our nature to favor helping in-group members like friends, family, or fellow citizens, and to neglect or even punish out-group members. Even as some moral circles expand, others remain stubbornly fixed, or even contract: Just think of Democrats and Republicans, Sunnis and Shiites, Duke and North Carolina basketball fans.
The endpoint of the liberal humanitarian project, which is universal empathy, would mean no boundary between in-group and out-group. In aiming for this goal, we must fight our instincts. That is possible, to a degree. Research confirms that people can strengthen their moral muscles and blur the divide between in-group and out-group. Practicing meditation, for example, can increase empathy, improving people’s ability to decode emotions from people’s facial expressions1 and making them more likely to offer a chair2 to someone with crutches. Simply increasing people’s beliefs in the malleability of empathy increases the empathy they express toward ideologically and racially dissimilar others.3 And when all else fails, people respond to financial gain. My co-authors and I have shown that introducing monetary incentives for accurate perspective-taking increased Democrats’ and Republicans’ ability to understand each other and to believe that political resolutions were possible.4
But these exercises can take us only so far. In fact, there is a terrible irony in the assumption that we can ever transcend our parochial tendencies entirely. Social scientists have found that in-group love and out-group hate originate from the same neurobiological basis, are mutually reinforcing, and co-evolved—because loyalty to the in-group provided a survival advantage by helping our ancestors to combat a threatening out-group. That means that, in principle, if we eliminate out-group hate completely, we may also undermine in-group love. Empathy is a zero-sum game.
More...
http://nautil.us//issue/51/limits/no-yo ... 8-60760513
Inside Billionaire Bill Gates’ trip to Tanzania
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania – Bill Gates announced a $15 million investment to help digitise Tanzania’s health information systems and improve health data in the country. Gates congratulated members of the government of Tanzania on leading a drive to incorporate digital health and data into their policy framework.
Photo: Zuma Press/RealTime Images
Philanthropist Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, visited Tanzania earlier this month, to learn more about the country’s development priorities. The foundation believes that the effective use of data is a fundamental building block in creating robust health systems. Bill met with the foundation’s key partners in Tanzania, including government officials (among others, the Tanzanian President John Magufuli), health care workers and development executives, to understand how the country is increasing the use of data in its health sector.
A key focus of this visit was to see, first-hand, the progress Tanzania has made towards achieving the health sector’s data vision, including how innovative practices are delivering on this strategy. During the visit, Bill launched a new partnership with the Government of Tanzania which complements the Better Immunization Data Initiative by accelerating the use of existing data and developing strong data policy frameworks.
Bill also meet with public and private sector stakeholders to discuss opportunities to expand the reach of digital payments. About half of Tanzania’s population have adopted mobile money technology. These meetings helped identify opportunities for expanding and deepening the use of digital payments in the country.
During the visit, Bill toured a fertiliser factory to understand local initiatives aimed at improving the supply and distribution of fertilizer to smallholder farmers. Better access to quality fertiliser and other inputs will help farmers boost staple crop and livestock productivity. This in turn will enable farmers to both feed their families and generate higher incomes. Boosting agricultural production can ensure that healthy, nutritious food is available to all. The foundation is working with a number of partners in Tanzania and elsewhere, including GAIN, UNICEF and Johns Hopkins University, to tackle issues around undernutrition in the country.
The foundation works with partners in more than 45 African countries to reduce poverty and improve health. Some of the major areas of investment include agriculture, child health and nutrition, family planning and financial services for the poor. Between 2001 and 2016, the foundation invested more than $9 billion in Africa. The foundation plans to invest an additional $5 billion by 2021.
https://www.cnbcafrica.com/news/east-af ... -216274365
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania – Bill Gates announced a $15 million investment to help digitise Tanzania’s health information systems and improve health data in the country. Gates congratulated members of the government of Tanzania on leading a drive to incorporate digital health and data into their policy framework.
Photo: Zuma Press/RealTime Images
Philanthropist Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, visited Tanzania earlier this month, to learn more about the country’s development priorities. The foundation believes that the effective use of data is a fundamental building block in creating robust health systems. Bill met with the foundation’s key partners in Tanzania, including government officials (among others, the Tanzanian President John Magufuli), health care workers and development executives, to understand how the country is increasing the use of data in its health sector.
A key focus of this visit was to see, first-hand, the progress Tanzania has made towards achieving the health sector’s data vision, including how innovative practices are delivering on this strategy. During the visit, Bill launched a new partnership with the Government of Tanzania which complements the Better Immunization Data Initiative by accelerating the use of existing data and developing strong data policy frameworks.
Bill also meet with public and private sector stakeholders to discuss opportunities to expand the reach of digital payments. About half of Tanzania’s population have adopted mobile money technology. These meetings helped identify opportunities for expanding and deepening the use of digital payments in the country.
During the visit, Bill toured a fertiliser factory to understand local initiatives aimed at improving the supply and distribution of fertilizer to smallholder farmers. Better access to quality fertiliser and other inputs will help farmers boost staple crop and livestock productivity. This in turn will enable farmers to both feed their families and generate higher incomes. Boosting agricultural production can ensure that healthy, nutritious food is available to all. The foundation is working with a number of partners in Tanzania and elsewhere, including GAIN, UNICEF and Johns Hopkins University, to tackle issues around undernutrition in the country.
The foundation works with partners in more than 45 African countries to reduce poverty and improve health. Some of the major areas of investment include agriculture, child health and nutrition, family planning and financial services for the poor. Between 2001 and 2016, the foundation invested more than $9 billion in Africa. The foundation plans to invest an additional $5 billion by 2021.
https://www.cnbcafrica.com/news/east-af ... -216274365
Giving Away Billions as Fast as They Can
Step aside, Rockefeller. Move over, Carnegie. Out of the way, Ford.
For the better part of a century, a few Gilded Age names dominated the ranks of big philanthropy.
No longer.
In a matter of years, a new crop of ultra-wealthy Americans has eclipsed the old guard of philanthropic titans. With names like Soros, Gates, Bloomberg, Mercer, Koch and Zuckerberg, these new megadonors are upending long-established norms in the staid world of big philanthropy.
They have accumulated vast fortunes early in their lives. They are spending it faster and writing bigger checks. And they are increasingly willing to take on hot-button social and political issues — on the right and left — that thrust them into the center of contentious debates.
Plenty of billionaires are still buying sports teams, building yachts and donating to museums and hospitals. But many new philanthropists appear less interested in naming a business school after themselves than in changing the world.
“They have a problem-solving mentality rather than a stewardship mentality,” said David Callahan, founder of the website Inside Philanthropy and author of “The Givers,” a book about today’s major donors. “They are not saving their money for a rainy day. They want to have impact now.”
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/busi ... gates.html
Step aside, Rockefeller. Move over, Carnegie. Out of the way, Ford.
For the better part of a century, a few Gilded Age names dominated the ranks of big philanthropy.
No longer.
In a matter of years, a new crop of ultra-wealthy Americans has eclipsed the old guard of philanthropic titans. With names like Soros, Gates, Bloomberg, Mercer, Koch and Zuckerberg, these new megadonors are upending long-established norms in the staid world of big philanthropy.
They have accumulated vast fortunes early in their lives. They are spending it faster and writing bigger checks. And they are increasingly willing to take on hot-button social and political issues — on the right and left — that thrust them into the center of contentious debates.
Plenty of billionaires are still buying sports teams, building yachts and donating to museums and hospitals. But many new philanthropists appear less interested in naming a business school after themselves than in changing the world.
“They have a problem-solving mentality rather than a stewardship mentality,” said David Callahan, founder of the website Inside Philanthropy and author of “The Givers,” a book about today’s major donors. “They are not saving their money for a rainy day. They want to have impact now.”
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/busi ... gates.html
The Mind Meld of Bill Gates and Steven Pinker
The entrepreneur-turned-philanthropist and the best-selling author discuss their surprising bond, the challenge to improve the human condition and the quest to create the perfect toilet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/busi ... d=45305309
Excerpt:
PG Bill, did your success at creating Microsoft make you more optimistic about tackling big issues at the foundation?
BG Absolutely. Take the foundation’s toilet project. We want to reinvent the toilet so it doesn’t need water piped in or out — just a chemical process, so that even Indian cities that will never spend $1 billion can have a toilet as good as a Western one. This is a 10-year quest. If I didn’t have the success I had at Microsoft, I would never have the bullheadedness to embark on this project.
PG Your mathematical skills probably make the foundation run differently than most?
BG You also have to understand science and history, and how to pick the right people to be able to back the right projects. Having optimism about science and feeling in command of scientists, that’s like what I did at Microsoft. And, yes, I embrace more risk. Most philanthropists don’t take huge, 10-to-15-years-type risks.
The entrepreneur-turned-philanthropist and the best-selling author discuss their surprising bond, the challenge to improve the human condition and the quest to create the perfect toilet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/busi ... d=45305309
Excerpt:
PG Bill, did your success at creating Microsoft make you more optimistic about tackling big issues at the foundation?
BG Absolutely. Take the foundation’s toilet project. We want to reinvent the toilet so it doesn’t need water piped in or out — just a chemical process, so that even Indian cities that will never spend $1 billion can have a toilet as good as a Western one. This is a 10-year quest. If I didn’t have the success I had at Microsoft, I would never have the bullheadedness to embark on this project.
PG Your mathematical skills probably make the foundation run differently than most?
BG You also have to understand science and history, and how to pick the right people to be able to back the right projects. Having optimism about science and feeling in command of scientists, that’s like what I did at Microsoft. And, yes, I embrace more risk. Most philanthropists don’t take huge, 10-to-15-years-type risks.
10 tough questions we get asked | Bill & Melinda Gates
Our 2018 Annual Letter
February 13, 2018
By Bill Gates and Melinda Gates
We are outspoken about our optimism. These days, though, optimism seems to be in short supply.
The headlines are filled with awful news. Every day brings a different story of political division, violence, or natural disaster.
Image
Despite the headlines, we see a world that’s getting better.
Compare today to the way things were a decade or a century ago. The world is healthier and safer than ever. The number of children who die every year has been cut in half since 1990 and keeps going down. The number of mothers who die has also dropped dramatically. So has extreme poverty—declining by nearly half in just 20 years. More children are attending school. The list goes on and on.
But being an optimist isn’t about knowing that life used to be worse. It’s about knowing how life can get better. And that’s what really fuels our optimism. Although we see a lot of disease and poverty in our work—and many other big problems that need to be solved—we also see the best of humanity. We spend our time learning from scientists who are inventing cutting-edge tools to cure disease. We talk to dedicated government leaders who are being creative about prioritizing the health and well-being of people around the world. And we meet brave and brilliant individuals all over the world who are imagining new ways to transform their communities.
That’s our response when people ask, “How can you be so optimistic?” It’s a question we’ve been getting more and more, and we think the answer says a lot about how we view the world.
This is our 10th Annual Letter, and we’re marking the occasion by answering 10 tough questions that people ask us. We will answer them as forthrightly as we can, and we hope that when you’re finished reading, you’ll be just as optimistic as we are.
More...
https://www.gatesnotes.com/2018-Annual-Letter
Our 2018 Annual Letter
February 13, 2018
By Bill Gates and Melinda Gates
We are outspoken about our optimism. These days, though, optimism seems to be in short supply.
The headlines are filled with awful news. Every day brings a different story of political division, violence, or natural disaster.
Image
Despite the headlines, we see a world that’s getting better.
Compare today to the way things were a decade or a century ago. The world is healthier and safer than ever. The number of children who die every year has been cut in half since 1990 and keeps going down. The number of mothers who die has also dropped dramatically. So has extreme poverty—declining by nearly half in just 20 years. More children are attending school. The list goes on and on.
But being an optimist isn’t about knowing that life used to be worse. It’s about knowing how life can get better. And that’s what really fuels our optimism. Although we see a lot of disease and poverty in our work—and many other big problems that need to be solved—we also see the best of humanity. We spend our time learning from scientists who are inventing cutting-edge tools to cure disease. We talk to dedicated government leaders who are being creative about prioritizing the health and well-being of people around the world. And we meet brave and brilliant individuals all over the world who are imagining new ways to transform their communities.
That’s our response when people ask, “How can you be so optimistic?” It’s a question we’ve been getting more and more, and we think the answer says a lot about how we view the world.
This is our 10th Annual Letter, and we’re marking the occasion by answering 10 tough questions that people ask us. We will answer them as forthrightly as we can, and we hope that when you’re finished reading, you’ll be just as optimistic as we are.
More...
https://www.gatesnotes.com/2018-Annual-Letter
Pioneering a People-Centered Approach to Corporate Philanthropy
How making the improvement of human lives around the globe a top priority can be a means to succeeding as a business.
In 1943, long before corporate social responsibility (CSR) became a catchphrase, Johnson & Johnson Chairman Robert Wood Johnson wrote the company’s now-famous “Our Credo,” which states that the company must be “responsible to the communities in which we live and work and to the world community as well.” While language like this is commonplace in corporate America today, when Johnson wrote those words, it was considered extraordinary for a company to put people before profit, and to claim that an obligation to help better society was embedded in its mission.
The very first line of that message states that meeting the needs of doctors and nurses is Johnson & Johnson’s first responsibility. In line with that goal, our employee secondment programs—which allow employees to work directly with our non-government organization (NGO) partners for up to six months—support the company’s larger focus on the global health workforce, especially health workers in developing countries who provide essential care for millions of people. We believe one of the best ways to advance global health is to ensure that health workers have the skills and resources they need to improve and save lives.
More....
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/pioneer ... ilanthropy#
How making the improvement of human lives around the globe a top priority can be a means to succeeding as a business.
In 1943, long before corporate social responsibility (CSR) became a catchphrase, Johnson & Johnson Chairman Robert Wood Johnson wrote the company’s now-famous “Our Credo,” which states that the company must be “responsible to the communities in which we live and work and to the world community as well.” While language like this is commonplace in corporate America today, when Johnson wrote those words, it was considered extraordinary for a company to put people before profit, and to claim that an obligation to help better society was embedded in its mission.
The very first line of that message states that meeting the needs of doctors and nurses is Johnson & Johnson’s first responsibility. In line with that goal, our employee secondment programs—which allow employees to work directly with our non-government organization (NGO) partners for up to six months—support the company’s larger focus on the global health workforce, especially health workers in developing countries who provide essential care for millions of people. We believe one of the best ways to advance global health is to ensure that health workers have the skills and resources they need to improve and save lives.
More....
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/pioneer ... ilanthropy#
Philanthropy Bets Big on Sustainable Development Goals
An international roster of donors has dispersed billions of dollars since 2000 to address social issues targeted by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Their efforts highlight four ways that big bets can achieve big social change.
The United Nations made headlines around the world in September 2015 when it adopted an ambitious set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that aim to end extreme poverty, protect the planet, and ensure health and prosperity for all by 2030. Delivering on these goals won’t come cheap. The UN estimates that it will require an additional $2.5 trillion in funding each year above what is currently being spent by government, business, and philanthropy.
Government and business have the deepest pockets and, no doubt, will shoulder the largest financial burden. But they cannot do the job alone. Philanthropy also has a critical role to play. It brings not just much-needed money, but often a willingness to support big thinking, innovation, risk-taking, and collaboration.
More...
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/philant ... ment_goals
An international roster of donors has dispersed billions of dollars since 2000 to address social issues targeted by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Their efforts highlight four ways that big bets can achieve big social change.
The United Nations made headlines around the world in September 2015 when it adopted an ambitious set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that aim to end extreme poverty, protect the planet, and ensure health and prosperity for all by 2030. Delivering on these goals won’t come cheap. The UN estimates that it will require an additional $2.5 trillion in funding each year above what is currently being spent by government, business, and philanthropy.
Government and business have the deepest pockets and, no doubt, will shoulder the largest financial burden. But they cannot do the job alone. Philanthropy also has a critical role to play. It brings not just much-needed money, but often a willingness to support big thinking, innovation, risk-taking, and collaboration.
More...
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/philant ... ment_goals
Sponsor Women’s Empowerment: Eco-Soap Bank’s #GivingTuesday Match
On Tuesday, November 27th, starting at 8AM EST (5AM PST), donations toward this fundraiser will be matched for a limited time for #GivingTuesday!
Eco-Soap Bank provides reliable jobs at very good wages to women in developing countries who would otherwise struggle to support themselves and their families. These women often have few opportunities to gain marketable skills. They or their spouses may be disabled or HIV-positive, or they may be single parents with several children.
Alongside steady, gainful employment, Eco-Soap Bank also offers these women tutoring, English lessons, and other skills training. The ultimate goal is to help reintegrate them into their local economy by helping them find opportunities for upward mobility—breaking one of the world’s most pervasive glass ceilings—and to continue opening our doors to other women in need.
We’ll use the funds from this fundraiser to sponsor the women working in all of our 16 branches across the 10 countries we work in. Your sponsorship empowers women around the world to earn livelihoods providing lifesaving soap to children and families in need.
Individual donations of up to $20,000 will be matched by Facebook and Paypal starting Tuesday, November 27th at 8AM EST (5AM PST). But hurry—last year’s matching funds ran out in minutes! If you plan to give to support our soapmakers, please be at the ready to make your contribution right after 8AM!
For more information about Eco-Soap Bank, #GivingTuesday, or this fundraiser, please visit our Facebook page, send us a message, or get in touch at [email protected].
On behalf of the children and families we serve—thank you!
https://www.facebook.com/donate/2202214 ... 697930903/
On Tuesday, November 27th, starting at 8AM EST (5AM PST), donations toward this fundraiser will be matched for a limited time for #GivingTuesday!
Eco-Soap Bank provides reliable jobs at very good wages to women in developing countries who would otherwise struggle to support themselves and their families. These women often have few opportunities to gain marketable skills. They or their spouses may be disabled or HIV-positive, or they may be single parents with several children.
Alongside steady, gainful employment, Eco-Soap Bank also offers these women tutoring, English lessons, and other skills training. The ultimate goal is to help reintegrate them into their local economy by helping them find opportunities for upward mobility—breaking one of the world’s most pervasive glass ceilings—and to continue opening our doors to other women in need.
We’ll use the funds from this fundraiser to sponsor the women working in all of our 16 branches across the 10 countries we work in. Your sponsorship empowers women around the world to earn livelihoods providing lifesaving soap to children and families in need.
Individual donations of up to $20,000 will be matched by Facebook and Paypal starting Tuesday, November 27th at 8AM EST (5AM PST). But hurry—last year’s matching funds ran out in minutes! If you plan to give to support our soapmakers, please be at the ready to make your contribution right after 8AM!
For more information about Eco-Soap Bank, #GivingTuesday, or this fundraiser, please visit our Facebook page, send us a message, or get in touch at [email protected].
On behalf of the children and families we serve—thank you!
https://www.facebook.com/donate/2202214 ... 697930903/
A Call to Modernize American Philanthropy
The giving practices of rich magnates and foundations still suggest a colonial mind-set, the author of a new book argues, as he offers ideas for change.
When America’s philanthropic and social sector were developed early in the 20th century, the design resembled elements of colonial social architecture: bureaucracy, competition, specialization and consolidation of power and resources, Edgar Villanueva writes in his new book, “Decolonizing Wealth: Indigenous Wisdom to Heal Divides and Restore Balance.”
Mr. Villanueva, who has held leadership positions in philanthropy, and is an enrolled member of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, argues that philanthropy in the United States continues to transmit a “colonizing virus” by remaining “top-down, closed-door and expert-driven.”
“Writing this book, I started from a place of pain,” Mr. Villanueva said. “I was angry. But there’s plenty of books that criticize. What would I do differently? I felt like I had to push through to a place where I’m offering a different way of thinking.”
I sat down with Mr. Villanueva recently to discuss his book — a compassionate call for change and healing. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Interview and more:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/opin ... dline&te=1
The giving practices of rich magnates and foundations still suggest a colonial mind-set, the author of a new book argues, as he offers ideas for change.
When America’s philanthropic and social sector were developed early in the 20th century, the design resembled elements of colonial social architecture: bureaucracy, competition, specialization and consolidation of power and resources, Edgar Villanueva writes in his new book, “Decolonizing Wealth: Indigenous Wisdom to Heal Divides and Restore Balance.”
Mr. Villanueva, who has held leadership positions in philanthropy, and is an enrolled member of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, argues that philanthropy in the United States continues to transmit a “colonizing virus” by remaining “top-down, closed-door and expert-driven.”
“Writing this book, I started from a place of pain,” Mr. Villanueva said. “I was angry. But there’s plenty of books that criticize. What would I do differently? I felt like I had to push through to a place where I’m offering a different way of thinking.”
I sat down with Mr. Villanueva recently to discuss his book — a compassionate call for change and healing. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Interview and more:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/opin ... dline&te=1
As Mobile and Digital Fundraisers Expand, Charity Walks Keep Striding Forward
To borrow from Mark Twain, “Reports of the death of the fundraising walk are exaggerated.”
Each year — especially when reporters are assigned to do their year-end stories on charitable giving — we’re greeted with headlines about how charity walks are a thing of the past.
While it’s true that some of the nation’s largest fundraising walk campaigns have seen revenue declines in recent years, a look beneath the surface shows that fundraising walks are far from dead.
In fact, a number of organizations in both the United States and Canada are seeing significant gains in their fundraising walk revenues.
Longstanding programs like the Alzheimer’s Association’s Walk to End Alzheimer’s, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network’s Purple Stride, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Light The Night Walk, and Aga Khan Foundation’s World Partnership Walk are thriving.
More...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhesse ... 6ece84406e
To borrow from Mark Twain, “Reports of the death of the fundraising walk are exaggerated.”
Each year — especially when reporters are assigned to do their year-end stories on charitable giving — we’re greeted with headlines about how charity walks are a thing of the past.
While it’s true that some of the nation’s largest fundraising walk campaigns have seen revenue declines in recent years, a look beneath the surface shows that fundraising walks are far from dead.
In fact, a number of organizations in both the United States and Canada are seeing significant gains in their fundraising walk revenues.
Longstanding programs like the Alzheimer’s Association’s Walk to End Alzheimer’s, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network’s Purple Stride, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Light The Night Walk, and Aga Khan Foundation’s World Partnership Walk are thriving.
More...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhesse ... 6ece84406e
Melinda Gates on tech innovation, global health and her own privilege.
You would perhaps be demonstrating an excess of sympathy to feel sorry for ultrawealthy philanthropists. But it’s fair to say that many members of that cohort have found themselves in a challenging moment, faced as they are with increasing anti-elitism and skepticism about just how much altruism, as opposed to ideological self-interest, motivates their work. “There are absolutely different points of view about philanthropy,” says Melinda Gates, who, along with her husband Bill, heads the charitable foundation that bears their name, aimed at increasing global health and reducing poverty. Its endowment, at $50.7 billion, is the largest in the world. “But we’re lucky to live in a democracy, where we can all envision what we want things to look like.” In that regard, Gates’s focus, both here and abroad, is on broadening women’s rights, a subject she explores in her new book, “The Moment of Lift.” “I have rage,” she said, about the injustices she has seen. “It’s up to me to metabolize that and use it to fuel my work.”
Interview....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... 3053090416
You would perhaps be demonstrating an excess of sympathy to feel sorry for ultrawealthy philanthropists. But it’s fair to say that many members of that cohort have found themselves in a challenging moment, faced as they are with increasing anti-elitism and skepticism about just how much altruism, as opposed to ideological self-interest, motivates their work. “There are absolutely different points of view about philanthropy,” says Melinda Gates, who, along with her husband Bill, heads the charitable foundation that bears their name, aimed at increasing global health and reducing poverty. Its endowment, at $50.7 billion, is the largest in the world. “But we’re lucky to live in a democracy, where we can all envision what we want things to look like.” In that regard, Gates’s focus, both here and abroad, is on broadening women’s rights, a subject she explores in her new book, “The Moment of Lift.” “I have rage,” she said, about the injustices she has seen. “It’s up to me to metabolize that and use it to fuel my work.”
Interview....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... 3053090416
Bringing Hope to Pakistan’s Street Children
"There are those...who enter the world in such poverty that they are deprived of both the means and the motivation to improve their lot. Unless these unfortunates can be touched with the spark which ignites the spirit of individual enterprise and determination, they will only sink back into renewed apathy, degradation and despair. It is for us, who are more fortunate, to provide that spark.” -Mawlana Hazar Imam, at the Inauguration of the Aga Khan Baug, Versova, India, January 17, 1983
Providing this spark of hope is Memphis, Tennessee-based Nasreen Aman’s calling in life. In her case, the spark lights the future of street children living in Northern Pakistan.
A few years ago, Nasreen watched with despair, Pakistan’s Hidden Shame, a BBC documentary about young boys living on the streets in towns and cities across Pakistan. In addition to being homeless, these children are vulnerable, exploited, and hopeless. Heartbroken, she could not sit by and just sympathize; she mobilized to help the very children she was seeing on the television.
Born of this impetus was Spark of Hope, a Tennessee Public Benefit Corporation, that raises funds from various communities in the state to educate vagrant children in Pakistan.
Spark of Hope partners on the ground in Pakistan with two direct services providers: Ran’aa Child Welfare Foundation, which operates a community center with academically and socially nourishing programming for impoverished children to position them to become productive members of society; and Zamung Kor, a state-run initiative to house and educate through eighth grade children who have lost their parents and are destitute. The children enriched are as young as four years old, and the curricular offerings are innovative, including digital proficiency and foreign languages.
With Zamung Kor, Spark of Hope has formalized a Memorandum of Understanding, under which it will tailor its educational offerings to the emotional and physical needs of young children who have only lived in open spaces, may experience claustrophobia easily and may be prone to anger as a defense. Together, the partner organizations will provide state of the art athletic and vocational training, because although not every child will excel in the classroom, each still deserves the chance to a constructive life. Further, Spark of Hope will create continued educational trajectories for these children, once they age out of the Zamung Kor offerings.
The success stories from Nasreen’s work are palpable. They include narratives of children going from scrounging in a dump for saleable materials and earning a pittance, to attending school in crisp uniforms with joy and enthusiasm; and of a mathematically inclined child selling donuts on the street to teaching math to his peers and growing up to pursue engineering professionally.
While Spark of Hope’s financial support today is anchored in the generosity of the South Asian community in Memphis, Tennessee, Nasreen hopes to expand this collaboration to include in-kind offerings from the University of Memphis, in the form of curricular aid and innovation. She also envisions an opportunity for collaboration with the local Aga Khan Youth & Sports Board in Pakistan, in the form of internships for students, as well as cross collaboration with American students looking for opportunities to serve overseas.
Nasreen believes that “education will ignite a spark in these children’s lives to help them move away from desperation and poverty, towards a hopeful tomorrow, with sustainable opportunities for a better future.”
She has certainly put her words to action, bringing hope to these children.
Additional information about Nasreen’s organization can be found at http://Mysparkofhope.org.
Photos at:
https://the.ismaili/usa/bringing-hope-p ... rce=Direct
"There are those...who enter the world in such poverty that they are deprived of both the means and the motivation to improve their lot. Unless these unfortunates can be touched with the spark which ignites the spirit of individual enterprise and determination, they will only sink back into renewed apathy, degradation and despair. It is for us, who are more fortunate, to provide that spark.” -Mawlana Hazar Imam, at the Inauguration of the Aga Khan Baug, Versova, India, January 17, 1983
Providing this spark of hope is Memphis, Tennessee-based Nasreen Aman’s calling in life. In her case, the spark lights the future of street children living in Northern Pakistan.
A few years ago, Nasreen watched with despair, Pakistan’s Hidden Shame, a BBC documentary about young boys living on the streets in towns and cities across Pakistan. In addition to being homeless, these children are vulnerable, exploited, and hopeless. Heartbroken, she could not sit by and just sympathize; she mobilized to help the very children she was seeing on the television.
Born of this impetus was Spark of Hope, a Tennessee Public Benefit Corporation, that raises funds from various communities in the state to educate vagrant children in Pakistan.
Spark of Hope partners on the ground in Pakistan with two direct services providers: Ran’aa Child Welfare Foundation, which operates a community center with academically and socially nourishing programming for impoverished children to position them to become productive members of society; and Zamung Kor, a state-run initiative to house and educate through eighth grade children who have lost their parents and are destitute. The children enriched are as young as four years old, and the curricular offerings are innovative, including digital proficiency and foreign languages.
With Zamung Kor, Spark of Hope has formalized a Memorandum of Understanding, under which it will tailor its educational offerings to the emotional and physical needs of young children who have only lived in open spaces, may experience claustrophobia easily and may be prone to anger as a defense. Together, the partner organizations will provide state of the art athletic and vocational training, because although not every child will excel in the classroom, each still deserves the chance to a constructive life. Further, Spark of Hope will create continued educational trajectories for these children, once they age out of the Zamung Kor offerings.
The success stories from Nasreen’s work are palpable. They include narratives of children going from scrounging in a dump for saleable materials and earning a pittance, to attending school in crisp uniforms with joy and enthusiasm; and of a mathematically inclined child selling donuts on the street to teaching math to his peers and growing up to pursue engineering professionally.
While Spark of Hope’s financial support today is anchored in the generosity of the South Asian community in Memphis, Tennessee, Nasreen hopes to expand this collaboration to include in-kind offerings from the University of Memphis, in the form of curricular aid and innovation. She also envisions an opportunity for collaboration with the local Aga Khan Youth & Sports Board in Pakistan, in the form of internships for students, as well as cross collaboration with American students looking for opportunities to serve overseas.
Nasreen believes that “education will ignite a spark in these children’s lives to help them move away from desperation and poverty, towards a hopeful tomorrow, with sustainable opportunities for a better future.”
She has certainly put her words to action, bringing hope to these children.
Additional information about Nasreen’s organization can be found at http://Mysparkofhope.org.
Photos at:
https://the.ismaili/usa/bringing-hope-p ... rce=Direct
Notre-Dame Donation Backlash Raises Debate: What’s Worthy of Philanthropy?
As flames engulfed Notre-Dame, people from around the world opened their wallets and began making donations. Within two days, nearly $1 billion was raised to help pay for the restoration of the 856-year-old cathedral in Paris.
The charitable response was a reflection of Notre-Dame’s stature as a cherished monument of French cultural heritage. Some benefactors pledged more than $100 million each, including François-Henri Pinault, whose wealth comes from luxury brands like Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent, and Bernard Arnault, the richest person in Europe and chief executive of the luxury goods conglomerate LVMH.
But the outpouring met with resistance as critics wondered why tragedies like the incineration of the National Museum of Brazil in Rio de Janeiro in September did not receive the same degree of support. And it rekindled class resentment in a city already racked by the so-called Yellow Vest movement, a populist response to economic inequality in France that tapped into a rising global movement against the concentration of wealth.
Some criticism was aimed at donors for not paying their fair share in taxes and thus depriving the French government of the revenue to repair Notre-Dame itself. Others denounced the reputational boost bestowed on philanthropists at a time of national tragedy. And some attacked the premise of giving so much to a damaged cathedral when that money could better benefit social service organizations that could provide food, shelter or a better education to needy citizens.
But philanthropic experts and advisers said they were not shocked by what seemed like an ungrateful response.
“It’s not surprising,” said Nicolas Berggruen, a billionaire philanthropist who founded the Berggruen Institute in Los Angeles, which aims to reshape political and social institutions to develop long-term solutions to society’s challenges. “In the age of anxiety, people will look to accuse lots of different groups for all of the evil or some of the evil. Rich people for sure fall into this. Philanthropists are an extension of that.”
Others took a less philosophical approach, saying that for society to be most effective, philanthropists need to work with government and the private sector, not alone or in opposition to them.
More....
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/your ... _th_190427
As flames engulfed Notre-Dame, people from around the world opened their wallets and began making donations. Within two days, nearly $1 billion was raised to help pay for the restoration of the 856-year-old cathedral in Paris.
The charitable response was a reflection of Notre-Dame’s stature as a cherished monument of French cultural heritage. Some benefactors pledged more than $100 million each, including François-Henri Pinault, whose wealth comes from luxury brands like Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent, and Bernard Arnault, the richest person in Europe and chief executive of the luxury goods conglomerate LVMH.
But the outpouring met with resistance as critics wondered why tragedies like the incineration of the National Museum of Brazil in Rio de Janeiro in September did not receive the same degree of support. And it rekindled class resentment in a city already racked by the so-called Yellow Vest movement, a populist response to economic inequality in France that tapped into a rising global movement against the concentration of wealth.
Some criticism was aimed at donors for not paying their fair share in taxes and thus depriving the French government of the revenue to repair Notre-Dame itself. Others denounced the reputational boost bestowed on philanthropists at a time of national tragedy. And some attacked the premise of giving so much to a damaged cathedral when that money could better benefit social service organizations that could provide food, shelter or a better education to needy citizens.
But philanthropic experts and advisers said they were not shocked by what seemed like an ungrateful response.
“It’s not surprising,” said Nicolas Berggruen, a billionaire philanthropist who founded the Berggruen Institute in Los Angeles, which aims to reshape political and social institutions to develop long-term solutions to society’s challenges. “In the age of anxiety, people will look to accuse lots of different groups for all of the evil or some of the evil. Rich people for sure fall into this. Philanthropists are an extension of that.”
Others took a less philosophical approach, saying that for society to be most effective, philanthropists need to work with government and the private sector, not alone or in opposition to them.
More....
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/your ... _th_190427
When Your Money Is So Tainted Museums Don’t Want It
Nonprofits should not allow themselves to be used by the wealthy to scrub their consciences.
Excerpt:
Are museums, opera houses, food pantries and other nonprofits to be held responsible for how their donors have made their money? It is a question being asked more and more as a century-old taboo shatters.
“No amount of charity in spending such fortunes can compensate in any way for the misconduct in acquiring them,” Theodore Roosevelt said after John D. Rockefeller proposed starting a foundation in 1909. It was not a lonely thought at the time.
But in the decades since, not least because of the amount of philanthropic coin that has been spent (can it still be called bribing when millions are the recipients?), touching all corners of our cultural life, attitudes have changed. And, as I found in spending the last few years reporting on nonprofits and foundations, a deeply complicit silence took hold: It was understood that you don’t challenge people on how they make their money, how they pay their taxes (or don’t), what continuing deeds they may be engaged in — so long as they “give back.”
When I speak privately with people working in nonprofits, as I often do, especially younger people, I hear this complaint again and again: They agonize about having to stay quiet not only about their donors’ membership in a class that has benefited from an age of inequality but also about specific conduct by many donors that often worsens the problems the donors and nonprofits are working to solve.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/opin ... _th_190517
Nonprofits should not allow themselves to be used by the wealthy to scrub their consciences.
Excerpt:
Are museums, opera houses, food pantries and other nonprofits to be held responsible for how their donors have made their money? It is a question being asked more and more as a century-old taboo shatters.
“No amount of charity in spending such fortunes can compensate in any way for the misconduct in acquiring them,” Theodore Roosevelt said after John D. Rockefeller proposed starting a foundation in 1909. It was not a lonely thought at the time.
But in the decades since, not least because of the amount of philanthropic coin that has been spent (can it still be called bribing when millions are the recipients?), touching all corners of our cultural life, attitudes have changed. And, as I found in spending the last few years reporting on nonprofits and foundations, a deeply complicit silence took hold: It was understood that you don’t challenge people on how they make their money, how they pay their taxes (or don’t), what continuing deeds they may be engaged in — so long as they “give back.”
When I speak privately with people working in nonprofits, as I often do, especially younger people, I hear this complaint again and again: They agonize about having to stay quiet not only about their donors’ membership in a class that has benefited from an age of inequality but also about specific conduct by many donors that often worsens the problems the donors and nonprofits are working to solve.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/opin ... _th_190517
Drug Companies Are Focusing on the Poor After Decades of Ignoring Them
The pharmaceutical industry once sued to keep AIDS drugs from dying Africans. Now companies boast of their efforts to get medicines to the developing world.
Twenty years ago, thousands of Africans died of AIDS each day as pharmaceutical companies looked on, murmuring sympathy but claiming that they could not afford to cut the prices of their $15,000-a-year H.I.V. drugs.
It’s hard to imagine such a nightmare unfolding today. Vast changes have swept the drug industry over the last two decades. Powerful medicines once available only in rich countries are distributed in the most remote regions of the globe, saving millions of lives each year.
Nearly 20 million Africans are now on H.I.V. treatment — for less than $100 a year. Top-quality drugs for malaria, tuberculosis, hepatitis C and some cancers are now sold at rock-bottom prices in poor countries.
Once demonized as immoral profiteers, many of the world’s biggest 20 pharmaceutical companies now boast about how they help poor countries and fight neglected diseases. They compete on the Access to Medicine Index, which scores their charitable efforts.
More....
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/heal ... c_20190625
The pharmaceutical industry once sued to keep AIDS drugs from dying Africans. Now companies boast of their efforts to get medicines to the developing world.
Twenty years ago, thousands of Africans died of AIDS each day as pharmaceutical companies looked on, murmuring sympathy but claiming that they could not afford to cut the prices of their $15,000-a-year H.I.V. drugs.
It’s hard to imagine such a nightmare unfolding today. Vast changes have swept the drug industry over the last two decades. Powerful medicines once available only in rich countries are distributed in the most remote regions of the globe, saving millions of lives each year.
Nearly 20 million Africans are now on H.I.V. treatment — for less than $100 a year. Top-quality drugs for malaria, tuberculosis, hepatitis C and some cancers are now sold at rock-bottom prices in poor countries.
Once demonized as immoral profiteers, many of the world’s biggest 20 pharmaceutical companies now boast about how they help poor countries and fight neglected diseases. They compete on the Access to Medicine Index, which scores their charitable efforts.
More....
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/heal ... c_20190625
Should Oil Money Fund the Arts? Leading British Artists Say No
The National Portrait Gallery in London is the latest institution to face high-profile protests over fossil-fuel sponsorship.
LONDON — Accepting money from arms companies has long been unthinkable for most arts organizations in Europe. This year, taking money from the Sackler family, which has been linked to the opioid crisis, became taboo for many of them, too.
Now, artists and activists say oil and gas money should be added to that list.
On Friday, 78 British artists including Antony Gormley, Anish Kapoor and Sarah Lucas said they had called on the National Portrait Gallery in London to cut ties with BP, saying its “role in furthering the climate crisis” made accepting new sponsorship from the company unacceptable.
“We believe that, today, the loss of BP as a source of funding is a cost worth bearing,” the artists said in an open letter to the museum.
BP acknowledges climate change is a significant problem but is only investing 3 percent of its available capital in renewable energy, the letter said. This was a “glaring contradiction between words and actions,” the letter added.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/05/arts ... 3053090706
The National Portrait Gallery in London is the latest institution to face high-profile protests over fossil-fuel sponsorship.
LONDON — Accepting money from arms companies has long been unthinkable for most arts organizations in Europe. This year, taking money from the Sackler family, which has been linked to the opioid crisis, became taboo for many of them, too.
Now, artists and activists say oil and gas money should be added to that list.
On Friday, 78 British artists including Antony Gormley, Anish Kapoor and Sarah Lucas said they had called on the National Portrait Gallery in London to cut ties with BP, saying its “role in furthering the climate crisis” made accepting new sponsorship from the company unacceptable.
“We believe that, today, the loss of BP as a source of funding is a cost worth bearing,” the artists said in an open letter to the museum.
BP acknowledges climate change is a significant problem but is only investing 3 percent of its available capital in renewable energy, the letter said. This was a “glaring contradiction between words and actions,” the letter added.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/05/arts ... 3053090706
Russia’s second-richest man pledges to leave all his money to charity
Billionaire Mikhail Fridman, whose net worth is $13.3 billion according to Forbes, is to leave his children out of his will. The businessman said he wants his children to create something on their own.
“I'm not a big fan of such public statements, but I can say that I am going to transfer all my money to charity. I don’t plan to transfer any money to my children,” Fridman said, responding to a question from the audience at the Forbes club.
He says giving a young person large amounts of money risks ruining his life. He also doesn’t want his children to participate in his Alfa Group business.
Fridman said he wants his children to follow his footsteps and create something of their own. Another reason for that is that he doesn’t want his elder daughter Laura, who is now 22, to become a focus of people with bad intentions.
The tycoon added that the same decision was made by his business partners. Fridman has four children. The youngest is 10 years old, the eldest is 22.
In 2016, Forbes Russia estimated Fridman’s wealth at $13.3 billion; he is ranked second among the richest Russians. He is the principal owner of Alfa Group, which includes Russia’s largest private commercial bank Alfa Bank, X5 Retail Group that has a chain of supermarkets in Russia, A1 TV Channel and the LetterOne investment holding.
https://www.rt.com/business/343781-mikh ... l-charity/
Billionaire Mikhail Fridman, whose net worth is $13.3 billion according to Forbes, is to leave his children out of his will. The businessman said he wants his children to create something on their own.
“I'm not a big fan of such public statements, but I can say that I am going to transfer all my money to charity. I don’t plan to transfer any money to my children,” Fridman said, responding to a question from the audience at the Forbes club.
He says giving a young person large amounts of money risks ruining his life. He also doesn’t want his children to participate in his Alfa Group business.
Fridman said he wants his children to follow his footsteps and create something of their own. Another reason for that is that he doesn’t want his elder daughter Laura, who is now 22, to become a focus of people with bad intentions.
The tycoon added that the same decision was made by his business partners. Fridman has four children. The youngest is 10 years old, the eldest is 22.
In 2016, Forbes Russia estimated Fridman’s wealth at $13.3 billion; he is ranked second among the richest Russians. He is the principal owner of Alfa Group, which includes Russia’s largest private commercial bank Alfa Bank, X5 Retail Group that has a chain of supermarkets in Russia, A1 TV Channel and the LetterOne investment holding.
https://www.rt.com/business/343781-mikh ... l-charity/
Why You Should Give Your Money Away Today
Understanding what motivates charitable giving could inspire us all to be more generous.
Since Giving Tuesday was introduced in 2012, it has inspired more than $1 billion in donations. Last year, estimated giving topped $300 million. These numbers sound big — and they are. But they obscure the fact that relatively few individuals and families make charitable contributions: For example, in a typical year 45 percent of Americans give not even a single dollar, and 75 percent spend no time volunteering.
And this is a shame, because giving is an important way to help others, contribute to the public good and build the trust that glues a society together. One important step to encouraging more people to give is increasing our understanding of what motivates giving. When we better understand why people donate, we can be inspired to be more generous.
Charitable giving involves a complex array of motivations. I recently reviewed 14 projects funded by the University of Notre Dame’s Science of Generosity initiative that studied the manifestations, causes and consequences of giving. Researchers found that even twins, despite their similar genetic makeup, behaved differently based on their ability to take on the perspective of another person.
Some people give because of tax incentives (which may explain why charitable giving was down a bit last year: Changes in the tax code made giving less advantageous for some families). A second motive also has to do with economics: Many people feel they simply can’t afford to give.
Their willingness to give also depends on whether they view charitable organizations as honest and efficient. People can also give simply because they want to make the world a better place.
In my research, I’ve discovered that the most compelling reasons for people to give are social and relational benefits beyond the self. My colleague Heather E. Price and I found that people exist in a web of giving affiliations. People are more likely to give to charitable and religious causes when they have parents who were givers and partners who are supportive of giving, and when religious affiliations regularly expose them to religious-based calls to give. Living within generous social contexts matters. So, too, do friend groups. My colleague Song Yang and I found that people are more likely to donate when they have friends who donate and who ask them to donate.
As individuals it is important to see that there is no magical time in life when one suddenly becomes prepared to give, by having more money left to spend or more time on one’s hands. Many people assume that as students they are too busy to volunteer, or as a young parents they are too financially squeezed to donate.
But in my research, I learned that there are constraints on time and money at every stage in life. We can motivate ourselves to give throughout our lives, in whatever ways one can, by surrounding ourselves in giving-supportive contexts. We also need to be that giving-supportive context for others.
Paradoxically, giving money away also brings joy to the giver. My colleagues Christian Smith and Hilary Davidson found that givers are happier and healthier and have a greater sense of purpose in life. This is not just in terms of giving money to formal charitable organizations but also extends to informal acts of kindness. For example, they found that Americans who were regularly generous with their neighbors were twice as likely to agree that they have a purpose than those who were less generous to neighbors.
What this research shows is that givers do not need to fear that they will lose out by donating their time or money to others. It can be hard to part with precious resources, but some will feel more compelled if they assure themselves that they will benefit too.
Combining these motivations for giving, it seems then that there is something in it for everyone. Nearly everyone can benefit from giving in ways that matter to them, whether it’s financially, socially or personally.
Take a second look at that cause you have been thinking about donating to support, or that event you have been thinking about signing up for as a volunteer, or that neighbor who needs an extra hand. There is no better day than Giving Tuesday to say yes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/opin ... 0920191203
Understanding what motivates charitable giving could inspire us all to be more generous.
Since Giving Tuesday was introduced in 2012, it has inspired more than $1 billion in donations. Last year, estimated giving topped $300 million. These numbers sound big — and they are. But they obscure the fact that relatively few individuals and families make charitable contributions: For example, in a typical year 45 percent of Americans give not even a single dollar, and 75 percent spend no time volunteering.
And this is a shame, because giving is an important way to help others, contribute to the public good and build the trust that glues a society together. One important step to encouraging more people to give is increasing our understanding of what motivates giving. When we better understand why people donate, we can be inspired to be more generous.
Charitable giving involves a complex array of motivations. I recently reviewed 14 projects funded by the University of Notre Dame’s Science of Generosity initiative that studied the manifestations, causes and consequences of giving. Researchers found that even twins, despite their similar genetic makeup, behaved differently based on their ability to take on the perspective of another person.
Some people give because of tax incentives (which may explain why charitable giving was down a bit last year: Changes in the tax code made giving less advantageous for some families). A second motive also has to do with economics: Many people feel they simply can’t afford to give.
Their willingness to give also depends on whether they view charitable organizations as honest and efficient. People can also give simply because they want to make the world a better place.
In my research, I’ve discovered that the most compelling reasons for people to give are social and relational benefits beyond the self. My colleague Heather E. Price and I found that people exist in a web of giving affiliations. People are more likely to give to charitable and religious causes when they have parents who were givers and partners who are supportive of giving, and when religious affiliations regularly expose them to religious-based calls to give. Living within generous social contexts matters. So, too, do friend groups. My colleague Song Yang and I found that people are more likely to donate when they have friends who donate and who ask them to donate.
As individuals it is important to see that there is no magical time in life when one suddenly becomes prepared to give, by having more money left to spend or more time on one’s hands. Many people assume that as students they are too busy to volunteer, or as a young parents they are too financially squeezed to donate.
But in my research, I learned that there are constraints on time and money at every stage in life. We can motivate ourselves to give throughout our lives, in whatever ways one can, by surrounding ourselves in giving-supportive contexts. We also need to be that giving-supportive context for others.
Paradoxically, giving money away also brings joy to the giver. My colleagues Christian Smith and Hilary Davidson found that givers are happier and healthier and have a greater sense of purpose in life. This is not just in terms of giving money to formal charitable organizations but also extends to informal acts of kindness. For example, they found that Americans who were regularly generous with their neighbors were twice as likely to agree that they have a purpose than those who were less generous to neighbors.
What this research shows is that givers do not need to fear that they will lose out by donating their time or money to others. It can be hard to part with precious resources, but some will feel more compelled if they assure themselves that they will benefit too.
Combining these motivations for giving, it seems then that there is something in it for everyone. Nearly everyone can benefit from giving in ways that matter to them, whether it’s financially, socially or personally.
Take a second look at that cause you have been thinking about donating to support, or that event you have been thinking about signing up for as a volunteer, or that neighbor who needs an extra hand. There is no better day than Giving Tuesday to say yes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/opin ... 0920191203
How the Superrich Took Over the Museum World
The wealthy have always influenced the art scene. But in recent years, they’ve dominated it.
With the recent opening of its sleek new quarters, the Museum of Modern Art has solidified its position as one of the world’s leading showcases for high culture. Designed by the “starchitect” firm of Diller Scofidio + Renfro, the renovation cost $450 million; that comes on top of the $425 million the museum spent on an earlier makeover, in 2004. That redesign came under sharp criticism, and within a decade a new overhaul was deemed necessary. In less than 20 years, MoMA has spent almost a billion dollars reinventing itself.
Most of that money has come from the museum’s board of trustees. For the 2004 renovation, 50 trustees donated $5 million each. For this go-round, board members have again opened their wallets, along with David Geffen, who does not sit on the board but provided a whopping $100 million. The vast fortunes that make such do-overs possible raise questions about the composition of MoMA’s board at a time when such boards in general face growing scrutiny.
Earlier this year, both the Metropolitan and Guggenheim museums announced they would no longer accept donations from those members of the Sackler family linked to OxyContin, the powerful painkiller implicated in the opioid crisis. In July, Warren Kanders resigned as a vice chairman of the Whitney Museum after weeks of protests directed at his ownership of a company that manufactures tear gas canisters that had been used against migrants on the United States-Mexico border. And on Oct. 18 — three days before MoMA’s reopening — more than 100 activists picketed an exclusive preview party, calling on one of its board members, Laurence Fink, and his company, BlackRock, to divest its holdings in private prison companies.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/14/opin ... 3053091215
The wealthy have always influenced the art scene. But in recent years, they’ve dominated it.
With the recent opening of its sleek new quarters, the Museum of Modern Art has solidified its position as one of the world’s leading showcases for high culture. Designed by the “starchitect” firm of Diller Scofidio + Renfro, the renovation cost $450 million; that comes on top of the $425 million the museum spent on an earlier makeover, in 2004. That redesign came under sharp criticism, and within a decade a new overhaul was deemed necessary. In less than 20 years, MoMA has spent almost a billion dollars reinventing itself.
Most of that money has come from the museum’s board of trustees. For the 2004 renovation, 50 trustees donated $5 million each. For this go-round, board members have again opened their wallets, along with David Geffen, who does not sit on the board but provided a whopping $100 million. The vast fortunes that make such do-overs possible raise questions about the composition of MoMA’s board at a time when such boards in general face growing scrutiny.
Earlier this year, both the Metropolitan and Guggenheim museums announced they would no longer accept donations from those members of the Sackler family linked to OxyContin, the powerful painkiller implicated in the opioid crisis. In July, Warren Kanders resigned as a vice chairman of the Whitney Museum after weeks of protests directed at his ownership of a company that manufactures tear gas canisters that had been used against migrants on the United States-Mexico border. And on Oct. 18 — three days before MoMA’s reopening — more than 100 activists picketed an exclusive preview party, calling on one of its board members, Laurence Fink, and his company, BlackRock, to divest its holdings in private prison companies.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/14/opin ... 3053091215
Zimbabwe billionaire plans to pay doctors about $300 a month to end strike
HARARE (Reuters) – Striking junior doctors at Zimbabwe’s state hospitals will end a four-month strike after accepting an offer from a telecoms billionaire to pay them a monthly allowance of about $300 for six months, their union said on Thursday.
The doctors went on strike on Sept. 3 to protest against poor wages and a lack of adequate equipment and medicines, leaving many poor people unable to get treatment.
Junior doctors in Zimbabwe earn an average of just over $200 a month, including allowances.
Strive Masiyiwa, through his philanthropic arm Higher Life Foundation, last November set up a 100 million Zimbabwe dollar ($5.9 million) fund for the striking doctors.
More...
https://www.cnbcafrica.com/zdnl-mc/2020 ... nd-strike/
HARARE (Reuters) – Striking junior doctors at Zimbabwe’s state hospitals will end a four-month strike after accepting an offer from a telecoms billionaire to pay them a monthly allowance of about $300 for six months, their union said on Thursday.
The doctors went on strike on Sept. 3 to protest against poor wages and a lack of adequate equipment and medicines, leaving many poor people unable to get treatment.
Junior doctors in Zimbabwe earn an average of just over $200 a month, including allowances.
Strive Masiyiwa, through his philanthropic arm Higher Life Foundation, last November set up a 100 million Zimbabwe dollar ($5.9 million) fund for the striking doctors.
More...
https://www.cnbcafrica.com/zdnl-mc/2020 ... nd-strike/
Amazon's Bezos pledges $10 billion to climate change fight
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Amazon Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos will commit $10 billion to fund scientists, activists, nonprofits and other groups fighting to protect the environment and counter the effects of climate change, he said on Monday.
Bezos, who is the world's richest man, is among a growing list of billionaires to dedicate substantial funds towards combating the impact of global warming.
"Climate change is the biggest threat to our planet," Bezos said in an Instagram post. "I want to work alongside others both to amplify known ways and to explore new ways of fighting the devastating impact of climate change on this planet we all share."
The Bezos Earth Fund will begin issuing grants this summer as part of the initiative.
"It's going to take collective action from big companies, small companies, nation states, global organizations, and individuals," Bezos said.
Counteracting climate change has become a popular cause for U.S. billionaires in recent years, with Microsoft's Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer counted among the world's wealthiest environmental philanthropists. ⁣⁣⁣ Last year, Bezos pledged to make online retailer Amazon net carbon neutral by 2040 - the first major corporation to announce such a goal - and to buy 100,000 electric delivery vehicles from U.S. vehicle design and manufacturing startup Rivian Automotive LLC.
Bezos also said at the time that Amazon would meet the goals of the Paris climate accord 10 years ahead of the accord's schedule and invest $100 million to restore forests and wetlands.
Cutting emissions related to Amazon, which delivers 10 billion items a year and has a massive transportation and data center footprint, will be challenging.
The company has faced recent protests by environmental activists in France and rising pressure from its own employees to take action on climate change.
(Reporting by Laila Kearney; additional reporting by Rama Venkat in Bengaluru; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstor ... ailsignout
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Amazon Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos will commit $10 billion to fund scientists, activists, nonprofits and other groups fighting to protect the environment and counter the effects of climate change, he said on Monday.
Bezos, who is the world's richest man, is among a growing list of billionaires to dedicate substantial funds towards combating the impact of global warming.
"Climate change is the biggest threat to our planet," Bezos said in an Instagram post. "I want to work alongside others both to amplify known ways and to explore new ways of fighting the devastating impact of climate change on this planet we all share."
The Bezos Earth Fund will begin issuing grants this summer as part of the initiative.
"It's going to take collective action from big companies, small companies, nation states, global organizations, and individuals," Bezos said.
Counteracting climate change has become a popular cause for U.S. billionaires in recent years, with Microsoft's Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer counted among the world's wealthiest environmental philanthropists. ⁣⁣⁣ Last year, Bezos pledged to make online retailer Amazon net carbon neutral by 2040 - the first major corporation to announce such a goal - and to buy 100,000 electric delivery vehicles from U.S. vehicle design and manufacturing startup Rivian Automotive LLC.
Bezos also said at the time that Amazon would meet the goals of the Paris climate accord 10 years ahead of the accord's schedule and invest $100 million to restore forests and wetlands.
Cutting emissions related to Amazon, which delivers 10 billion items a year and has a massive transportation and data center footprint, will be challenging.
The company has faced recent protests by environmental activists in France and rising pressure from its own employees to take action on climate change.
(Reporting by Laila Kearney; additional reporting by Rama Venkat in Bengaluru; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstor ... ailsignout
Ground-breaking East Africa research reveals world-leading levels of generosity
The first comprehensive study of charitable giving in three major countries in eastern Africa reveals that the emerging middle classes are giving away roughly a quarter of their earnings each month to help others.
Compared with giving levels detailed in the Charities Aid Foundation’s (CAF) World Giving Index, these astonishing levels of generosity outstrip those of developed nations around the world.
The study found that in Kenya, the growing middle classes are giving away 22% of their monthly income, a figure that rose to 24% in Tanzania and 31% in Uganda.
Much of this grassroots philanthropy comes through informal gifts and support to family, friends and community members, with only 2% of those surveyed in Kenya, 3% in Tanzania, and 0% in Uganda saying they had not given to any group or individuals in the last 12 months.
The study from CAF in partnership with the Aga Khan Foundation, the CS Mott Foundation and the UK National Lottery Community Fund looked at giving trends in the three countries in order to gain a stronger understanding of the extent and nature of giving in fast-growing parts of the world.
Previous research by CAF examined the potential for charitable giving that lies with the estimated 2.4 billion people set to join the world’s middle classes and found that if they were to give just over 0.5% of their spending, as much as $319 billion could be raised to not only support charities, but to help countries strengthen the local organisations that speak up on behalf of society’s most vulnerable.
The research also looked at what factors may prevent people both giving to charities that deliver assistance such as health and education programmes and to organisations that fight for social justice, human rights and legal protections.
The research also found that:
- There is a deep-rooted belief in the importance of ‘paying it forward’ – when someone received help in life, their instinct is to do similar for others
- The cultural tradition of harambee (‘all pull together’ in Swahili) underpins this philanthropy – one-to-one giving or assistance within communities borne of a sense of togetherness
- Cash payments remain the most popular way to give, but mobile payment services are also widely used
- The members of the middle class in each country overwhelmingly stated that their charitable giving, while generous, did not lead them to incur hardships – signalling that there is room to give more (93% in Kenya and Uganda and 91% in Tanzania said that their giving habits do not make it difficult to make ends meet)
- Around half of survey respondents in Uganda (54%) and Kenya (48%) had supported a faith based organisation, the main type of formal charity or organisation supported in these two countries. In Tanzania however, people are far more likely to have supported a community-based organisation (50%).
- Among those who have supported a formal charity or organisation in the past 12 months, the most common cause was children and young people, with 73% of those surveyed in Kenya, 60% in Tanzania, and 78% in Uganda supporting this; this was followed by helping the poor or hungry in all three countries (50% in Kenya, 54% in Tanzania, and 62% in Uganda).
- Established charities and key voices in public debates, such as workers’ rights advocates, need to increase their public profile and be more transparent in their work if they are to overcome a lack of trust and attract more donations (44% of people said knowing more about the organisation would make them likely to give more money and 41% said more transparency in the sector would boost their giving habits.)
- Even where tax incentives to charitable giving are in place, most people do not know about them (81% in Kenya, 53% in Tanzania, and 69% in Uganda) or are unlikely to take advantage of them (94% of participants in Kenya, 91% in Tanzania, and 95% of participants in Uganda).
More...
https://www.akf.org.uk/news/ground-brea ... 25c8c5fc8d
The first comprehensive study of charitable giving in three major countries in eastern Africa reveals that the emerging middle classes are giving away roughly a quarter of their earnings each month to help others.
Compared with giving levels detailed in the Charities Aid Foundation’s (CAF) World Giving Index, these astonishing levels of generosity outstrip those of developed nations around the world.
The study found that in Kenya, the growing middle classes are giving away 22% of their monthly income, a figure that rose to 24% in Tanzania and 31% in Uganda.
Much of this grassroots philanthropy comes through informal gifts and support to family, friends and community members, with only 2% of those surveyed in Kenya, 3% in Tanzania, and 0% in Uganda saying they had not given to any group or individuals in the last 12 months.
The study from CAF in partnership with the Aga Khan Foundation, the CS Mott Foundation and the UK National Lottery Community Fund looked at giving trends in the three countries in order to gain a stronger understanding of the extent and nature of giving in fast-growing parts of the world.
Previous research by CAF examined the potential for charitable giving that lies with the estimated 2.4 billion people set to join the world’s middle classes and found that if they were to give just over 0.5% of their spending, as much as $319 billion could be raised to not only support charities, but to help countries strengthen the local organisations that speak up on behalf of society’s most vulnerable.
The research also looked at what factors may prevent people both giving to charities that deliver assistance such as health and education programmes and to organisations that fight for social justice, human rights and legal protections.
The research also found that:
- There is a deep-rooted belief in the importance of ‘paying it forward’ – when someone received help in life, their instinct is to do similar for others
- The cultural tradition of harambee (‘all pull together’ in Swahili) underpins this philanthropy – one-to-one giving or assistance within communities borne of a sense of togetherness
- Cash payments remain the most popular way to give, but mobile payment services are also widely used
- The members of the middle class in each country overwhelmingly stated that their charitable giving, while generous, did not lead them to incur hardships – signalling that there is room to give more (93% in Kenya and Uganda and 91% in Tanzania said that their giving habits do not make it difficult to make ends meet)
- Around half of survey respondents in Uganda (54%) and Kenya (48%) had supported a faith based organisation, the main type of formal charity or organisation supported in these two countries. In Tanzania however, people are far more likely to have supported a community-based organisation (50%).
- Among those who have supported a formal charity or organisation in the past 12 months, the most common cause was children and young people, with 73% of those surveyed in Kenya, 60% in Tanzania, and 78% in Uganda supporting this; this was followed by helping the poor or hungry in all three countries (50% in Kenya, 54% in Tanzania, and 62% in Uganda).
- Established charities and key voices in public debates, such as workers’ rights advocates, need to increase their public profile and be more transparent in their work if they are to overcome a lack of trust and attract more donations (44% of people said knowing more about the organisation would make them likely to give more money and 41% said more transparency in the sector would boost their giving habits.)
- Even where tax incentives to charitable giving are in place, most people do not know about them (81% in Kenya, 53% in Tanzania, and 69% in Uganda) or are unlikely to take advantage of them (94% of participants in Kenya, 91% in Tanzania, and 95% of participants in Uganda).
More...
https://www.akf.org.uk/news/ground-brea ... 25c8c5fc8d
COVID-19 :African Billionaire family lends more than half a billion in 11 days to stop small businesses being swept away.
More than half of the billion Rand fund put up by the billionaire Oppenheimer family has been lent to thousands of small businesses in just 11 days in a bid to help them weather the COIVD -19 storm, that threatens to wreck the South African economy.
The Oppenheimer family – that made a fortune over the last century in mining – was one of the first of the big family names in South African business to come forward with a relief fund when South Africa declared a state of disaster in March. It is called the South African Future Trust and it saw tens of thousands of applications from cash-strapped businesses within days..
Interest free loans worth R638 million have been disbursed, through the banks, to 5,800 small businesses. It will ensure that 55,000 employees of these companies can expect money at the end of this month in which South African business has been all but shut by the lockdown.
The Oppenheimers are trying to call their contacts to increase the billion Rand fund. Jonathan and his father Nick Oppenheimer managed to raise R40 million more for the fund by ringing around over the Easter weekend. A statement, on April 23, said those pledges had now increased to R120 million that will enable the fund to support an extra 10,000 workers.
“We are immensely grateful to those who have already joined the Oppenheimer family in contributing to SAFT,” says the family in the statement.
https://www.cnbcafrica.com/article/2020 ... ee9d77dc9f
More than half of the billion Rand fund put up by the billionaire Oppenheimer family has been lent to thousands of small businesses in just 11 days in a bid to help them weather the COIVD -19 storm, that threatens to wreck the South African economy.
The Oppenheimer family – that made a fortune over the last century in mining – was one of the first of the big family names in South African business to come forward with a relief fund when South Africa declared a state of disaster in March. It is called the South African Future Trust and it saw tens of thousands of applications from cash-strapped businesses within days..
Interest free loans worth R638 million have been disbursed, through the banks, to 5,800 small businesses. It will ensure that 55,000 employees of these companies can expect money at the end of this month in which South African business has been all but shut by the lockdown.
The Oppenheimers are trying to call their contacts to increase the billion Rand fund. Jonathan and his father Nick Oppenheimer managed to raise R40 million more for the fund by ringing around over the Easter weekend. A statement, on April 23, said those pledges had now increased to R120 million that will enable the fund to support an extra 10,000 workers.
“We are immensely grateful to those who have already joined the Oppenheimer family in contributing to SAFT,” says the family in the statement.
https://www.cnbcafrica.com/article/2020 ... ee9d77dc9f
Entrepreneurs from USA Jamat help the community during COVID-19 crisis
While the USA struggles with the closure of many businesses, some entrepreneurs are taking a bold stand to make a difference. Building on the principles of ethical and moral responsibility, four entrepreneurs are determined to use their businesses to help the community and first responders.
Rahim Maknojia, owner of Oaks Cleaner in Houston, offered assistance to those on the frontlines of the fight against this pandemic. Oaks Cleaner is providing free pickup and drop-off service for scrubs to be cleaned for doctors, nurses, Emergency Management Technicians (EMTs), and other medical staff.
“It’s our duty to recognize their selflessness and desire to protect others while risking their own health to safeguard our society,” Rahim said.
In accordance with CDC guidelines, medical garments are being cleaned between 248 F to 302 F to ensure proper disinfection.
Azim Maknojia was approached by Naushad Kermally, a member of the Sugar Land city council, to help support the community. As a partner of Ionized LLC, he responded immediately, acknowledging, “While this is not a primary area of activity for us, we realized that we can use our supply chain and logistical infrastructure to provide critical assistance in getting important supplies needed to address this challenge.”
Through their business ties in China, Ionized LLC has been able to work with Sugar Land fire marshals, Fort Bend County, officials of Houston’s Harris County, Chicago, New York, and Colorado, to supply critically-needed face shields, face masks, thermometers, surgical masks, and gowns.
“Businesses, like many other sectors of the society, have an important role to play in this globalized environment to connect resources with those keeping our communities safe and healthy,” Azim said.
Another entrepreneur stepping up is from Texas A&M University in College Station, offering comfort food to overworked and stressed officials. Sanif Maredia graduated in 2011 but cooking has been a passion for him, mixing sweet with savory. Fried chicken is one of his signature dishes. Faced with challenges in life when everything felt out of place, he started a truck-based food business and called it “MESS” in 2014.
In 2017, Sanif decided to launch MESS as a brick and mortar business. He has remained open during the pandemic, serving hundreds of complimentary breakfasts to local officials, and is expecting to serve several hundred more to medical professionals to express gratitude for their service to the community.
“During these difficult times, school meal programs have been put on hold, first responders are being overworked, and resources are scarce,” Sanif said. “As businesses around us are closing down, we decided to stay open and keep our staff on board. Everyone has a passion in life and when you can combine it with service to others, it will provide a unique sense of pride and joy.”
Chicago has its own story of entrepreneurial heroism. In the wake of the governor’s stay-at-home policy to tackle COVID-19, business-owner Rafiq Karimi of CD One Price Cleaners offers free laundry services for police, EMT, and healthcare workers, allowing them to grab some well-deserved rest while their clothes are cleaned.
Rafiq described his service as “Giving back to our community while allowing our healthcare workers and first responders to remain focused on health and wellbeing.”
He said their goal is to do laundry for at least 1,000 healthcare workers and first responders and he is confident they will achieve their goal.
https://the.ismaili/global/news/communi ... -173435533
While the USA struggles with the closure of many businesses, some entrepreneurs are taking a bold stand to make a difference. Building on the principles of ethical and moral responsibility, four entrepreneurs are determined to use their businesses to help the community and first responders.
Rahim Maknojia, owner of Oaks Cleaner in Houston, offered assistance to those on the frontlines of the fight against this pandemic. Oaks Cleaner is providing free pickup and drop-off service for scrubs to be cleaned for doctors, nurses, Emergency Management Technicians (EMTs), and other medical staff.
“It’s our duty to recognize their selflessness and desire to protect others while risking their own health to safeguard our society,” Rahim said.
In accordance with CDC guidelines, medical garments are being cleaned between 248 F to 302 F to ensure proper disinfection.
Azim Maknojia was approached by Naushad Kermally, a member of the Sugar Land city council, to help support the community. As a partner of Ionized LLC, he responded immediately, acknowledging, “While this is not a primary area of activity for us, we realized that we can use our supply chain and logistical infrastructure to provide critical assistance in getting important supplies needed to address this challenge.”
Through their business ties in China, Ionized LLC has been able to work with Sugar Land fire marshals, Fort Bend County, officials of Houston’s Harris County, Chicago, New York, and Colorado, to supply critically-needed face shields, face masks, thermometers, surgical masks, and gowns.
“Businesses, like many other sectors of the society, have an important role to play in this globalized environment to connect resources with those keeping our communities safe and healthy,” Azim said.
Another entrepreneur stepping up is from Texas A&M University in College Station, offering comfort food to overworked and stressed officials. Sanif Maredia graduated in 2011 but cooking has been a passion for him, mixing sweet with savory. Fried chicken is one of his signature dishes. Faced with challenges in life when everything felt out of place, he started a truck-based food business and called it “MESS” in 2014.
In 2017, Sanif decided to launch MESS as a brick and mortar business. He has remained open during the pandemic, serving hundreds of complimentary breakfasts to local officials, and is expecting to serve several hundred more to medical professionals to express gratitude for their service to the community.
“During these difficult times, school meal programs have been put on hold, first responders are being overworked, and resources are scarce,” Sanif said. “As businesses around us are closing down, we decided to stay open and keep our staff on board. Everyone has a passion in life and when you can combine it with service to others, it will provide a unique sense of pride and joy.”
Chicago has its own story of entrepreneurial heroism. In the wake of the governor’s stay-at-home policy to tackle COVID-19, business-owner Rafiq Karimi of CD One Price Cleaners offers free laundry services for police, EMT, and healthcare workers, allowing them to grab some well-deserved rest while their clothes are cleaned.
Rafiq described his service as “Giving back to our community while allowing our healthcare workers and first responders to remain focused on health and wellbeing.”
He said their goal is to do laundry for at least 1,000 healthcare workers and first responders and he is confident they will achieve their goal.
https://the.ismaili/global/news/communi ... -173435533
Billionaire Tracker: Actions The World’s Wealthiest Are Taking In Response To The Coronavirus Pandemic
As the coronavirus pandemic has reached nearly every corner of the world, some of the planet’s wealthiest are helping the global effort to combat the COVID-19 outbreak and do what they can for the economy.
Some tech tycoons, like Bill Gates, are donating millions of dollars to aid vaccine and disease research. Jack Dorsey, has pledged up to $1 billion to coronavirus relief and other causes. Many sports team owners, including Mark Cuban, are supporting arena staff while the season is on hiatus. Others, like Jeremy Jacobs, have asked their employees to shoulder a chunk of the financial burden.
Forbes will continue to update this list of billionaires (in alphabetical order) and how they are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic:
List at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hayleycucc ... effe0a7e69
As the coronavirus pandemic has reached nearly every corner of the world, some of the planet’s wealthiest are helping the global effort to combat the COVID-19 outbreak and do what they can for the economy.
Some tech tycoons, like Bill Gates, are donating millions of dollars to aid vaccine and disease research. Jack Dorsey, has pledged up to $1 billion to coronavirus relief and other causes. Many sports team owners, including Mark Cuban, are supporting arena staff while the season is on hiatus. Others, like Jeremy Jacobs, have asked their employees to shoulder a chunk of the financial burden.
Forbes will continue to update this list of billionaires (in alphabetical order) and how they are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic:
List at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hayleycucc ... effe0a7e69
Bill Gates Is the Most Interesting Man in the World
He’s everywhere, this lavender-sweatered Mister Rogers for the curious and quarantined.
“It tires me to talk to rich men,” said Teddy Roosevelt, himself a product of wealth. “You expect a man of millions, the head of a great industry, to be a man worth hearing. But as a rule, they don’t know anything outside their own businesses.”
Had T.R. spent time with Bill Gates, the polymath who predicted the pandemic in a TED Talk, he likely would have made an exception.
Gates is everywhere these days, a lavender-sweatered Mister Rogers for the curious and quarantined. With the United States surrendering in the global war against a disease without borders, Gates has filled the void. The U.S. is isolated, pitied, scorned. Gates, by one measure, is the most admired man in the world.
Beyond the $300 million that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given to blunt the spread of the virus, Gates has made himself a spokesman for science. It needs one. While President Trump spouts life-threatening nonsense, Gates calmly explains how a spike protein of coronavirus fits into the urgent hunt for a vaccine.
He’s the prophet who warned in 2015 that a pandemic was a greater risk to humankind than nuclear war. Five years before that, he challenged the world health community to commit to a decade of vaccines, and anted up $10 billion to get it started.
In 2018, he took the stage in Beijing with a jar of human poop. This, at the Reinvented Toilet Expo, was his way of stressing that about 500,000 young children die every year from diseases linked to poor sanitation — a problem his foundation has tackled.
He appears on both Fox News and MSNBC. He talks regularly with Dr. Anthony Fauci and peddles pandemic notes to Stephen Colbert. He recommends “A Gentleman in Moscow,” the Amor Towles novel about a hotel prisoner in Soviet Russia, on his personal blog, where he also praises the honesty of “These Truths,” Jill Lepore’s magisterial telling of our nation’s history.
Do I need to know that he and Melinda enjoy “This is Us,” the sap-heavy television series? No. But as they’ve already given away more than $50 billion as self-described “impatient optimists working to reduce inequality,” I’ll take their gloss on pop culture over an update on Kim Kardashian’s lip gloss.
Big Philanthropy can be about diplomatic power and muscle under the guise of charity. But there’s an inescapable truth about the world’s second-richest man’s decision to give away his fortune: The Gates Foundation has helped save millions of lives.
With the coronavirus, which Gates has called “the most dramatic thing ever in my lifetime by a lot,” his approach is to inject a turbocharger of money at many different levels. The foundation calls it “catalytic philanthropy.” To speed up the steps needed to get a vaccine to the world, for example, he’s funding the construction of factories to manufacture seven possible coronavirus vaccines, even if most of them fail.
Many tycoons tend to get miserly and coldhearted as they age. Gates has evolved in the opposite direction. Early on, the co-founder of Microsoft was arrogant, insufferable, whiny and socially distant when that was considered offensive — a monopoly capitalist without the imagination of his rival and friend Steve Jobs.
His initial efforts at philanthropy — giving computers away to underserved libraries and schools — opened him up to criticism (largely unfair) that the donations were part of a scheme to expand the market for Microsoft products. Gates soldiered on, making himself an expert in infectious diseases. He helped to create a market for lifesaving drugs that are often ignored by Big Pharma.
It’s uncanny how spot on he was in that 2015 speech. The greatest threat to the world was “not missiles but microbes,” he said. “You have a virus where people feel well enough while they’re infected so they get on a plane,” he said.
The first major American outbreak, in a nursing home just 11 miles from Gates’s house near Seattle, made him regret that he had not spoken out even more. He had warned Trump, just before he took office, of the seismic dangers of a pandemic.
Now, of course, Gates is the boogeyman in the fevered minds of many a delusional Trumper. The global lunacy community — anti-vaxxers, science-deniers, Russian agents — has spread so many conspiracy theories regarding Gates that misinformation about him is now among the most widespread of all coronavirus falsehoods.
The crackpots who have targeted Gates include Roger Stone, Laura Ingraham and the anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Would you get in a lifeboat with that trio?
The world needs a strong American response precisely because the disease has become a huge American problem. With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States accounts for more than 30 percent of the planet’s coronavirus cases. When Trump snubs the World Health Organization, he hurts American citizens.
The safer route for a billionaire trying to avoid social media predators is idle-rich vacuity. But Gates, who had urged nations to simulate “germ games not war games,” will not sit this one out from the safety of a yacht. He’s smart enough to see that this virus does not pick sides.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/opin ... 778d3e6de3
He’s everywhere, this lavender-sweatered Mister Rogers for the curious and quarantined.
“It tires me to talk to rich men,” said Teddy Roosevelt, himself a product of wealth. “You expect a man of millions, the head of a great industry, to be a man worth hearing. But as a rule, they don’t know anything outside their own businesses.”
Had T.R. spent time with Bill Gates, the polymath who predicted the pandemic in a TED Talk, he likely would have made an exception.
Gates is everywhere these days, a lavender-sweatered Mister Rogers for the curious and quarantined. With the United States surrendering in the global war against a disease without borders, Gates has filled the void. The U.S. is isolated, pitied, scorned. Gates, by one measure, is the most admired man in the world.
Beyond the $300 million that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given to blunt the spread of the virus, Gates has made himself a spokesman for science. It needs one. While President Trump spouts life-threatening nonsense, Gates calmly explains how a spike protein of coronavirus fits into the urgent hunt for a vaccine.
He’s the prophet who warned in 2015 that a pandemic was a greater risk to humankind than nuclear war. Five years before that, he challenged the world health community to commit to a decade of vaccines, and anted up $10 billion to get it started.
In 2018, he took the stage in Beijing with a jar of human poop. This, at the Reinvented Toilet Expo, was his way of stressing that about 500,000 young children die every year from diseases linked to poor sanitation — a problem his foundation has tackled.
He appears on both Fox News and MSNBC. He talks regularly with Dr. Anthony Fauci and peddles pandemic notes to Stephen Colbert. He recommends “A Gentleman in Moscow,” the Amor Towles novel about a hotel prisoner in Soviet Russia, on his personal blog, where he also praises the honesty of “These Truths,” Jill Lepore’s magisterial telling of our nation’s history.
Do I need to know that he and Melinda enjoy “This is Us,” the sap-heavy television series? No. But as they’ve already given away more than $50 billion as self-described “impatient optimists working to reduce inequality,” I’ll take their gloss on pop culture over an update on Kim Kardashian’s lip gloss.
Big Philanthropy can be about diplomatic power and muscle under the guise of charity. But there’s an inescapable truth about the world’s second-richest man’s decision to give away his fortune: The Gates Foundation has helped save millions of lives.
With the coronavirus, which Gates has called “the most dramatic thing ever in my lifetime by a lot,” his approach is to inject a turbocharger of money at many different levels. The foundation calls it “catalytic philanthropy.” To speed up the steps needed to get a vaccine to the world, for example, he’s funding the construction of factories to manufacture seven possible coronavirus vaccines, even if most of them fail.
Many tycoons tend to get miserly and coldhearted as they age. Gates has evolved in the opposite direction. Early on, the co-founder of Microsoft was arrogant, insufferable, whiny and socially distant when that was considered offensive — a monopoly capitalist without the imagination of his rival and friend Steve Jobs.
His initial efforts at philanthropy — giving computers away to underserved libraries and schools — opened him up to criticism (largely unfair) that the donations were part of a scheme to expand the market for Microsoft products. Gates soldiered on, making himself an expert in infectious diseases. He helped to create a market for lifesaving drugs that are often ignored by Big Pharma.
It’s uncanny how spot on he was in that 2015 speech. The greatest threat to the world was “not missiles but microbes,” he said. “You have a virus where people feel well enough while they’re infected so they get on a plane,” he said.
The first major American outbreak, in a nursing home just 11 miles from Gates’s house near Seattle, made him regret that he had not spoken out even more. He had warned Trump, just before he took office, of the seismic dangers of a pandemic.
Now, of course, Gates is the boogeyman in the fevered minds of many a delusional Trumper. The global lunacy community — anti-vaxxers, science-deniers, Russian agents — has spread so many conspiracy theories regarding Gates that misinformation about him is now among the most widespread of all coronavirus falsehoods.
The crackpots who have targeted Gates include Roger Stone, Laura Ingraham and the anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Would you get in a lifeboat with that trio?
The world needs a strong American response precisely because the disease has become a huge American problem. With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States accounts for more than 30 percent of the planet’s coronavirus cases. When Trump snubs the World Health Organization, he hurts American citizens.
The safer route for a billionaire trying to avoid social media predators is idle-rich vacuity. But Gates, who had urged nations to simulate “germ games not war games,” will not sit this one out from the safety of a yacht. He’s smart enough to see that this virus does not pick sides.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/opin ... 778d3e6de3
Museums, Guns and Money
Companies cynically use art to build webs of influence and become enmeshed in our lives.
In February, a group of activists smuggled a 13-foot-tall wooden horse inside the British Museum in London. The morning after they were joined by around a thousand people, who gathered inside the building to protest the oil company BP’s sponsorship of an exhibition devoted to the ancient city of Troy. In New York, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art, the Whitney Museum of American Art and the New Museum have all seen protests over their links to issues like the oil and arms trade, gentrification and colonialism. In some cases, trustees have had to leave museum boards in response to the public outrage.
Museums have clearly become a new site of protest. Such protests often provoke a passionate response from both the public and the art world. Perhaps this is because they cut to the heart of art’s social value: What, and whom, are museums for? Another question these protests raise is why art matters so much — not to the public, or even to museums, but to sponsors and donors.
This year marks the fourth anniversary of a turning point for museum protests and sponsorship. In 2016, the Tate museum network became the first major cultural institution in Britain to drop fossil fuel funding, following six years of pressure from activist groups primarily led by the art collective Liberate Tate, of which I was a member. Liberate Tate conducted 16 uninvited performances in Tate spaces, including spilling molasses inside Tate Britain in 2010 during an event celebrating BP’s sponsorship of the institution and bringing a 121-pound chunk of ice harvested from the Arctic to melt inside Tate Modern in 2012.
Tate’s divestment from fossil fuels was followed by similar moves by the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company in Britain, the Mauritshuis in The Hague and the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. Liberate Tate kicked off a new wave of protest performances inside major museums in the United States and Europe, directed at sponsors, donors and trustees. These changes suggest that another kind of museum is possible, but only if cultural institutions are willing to challenge and reshape their role in society.
Sponsors and donors’ valuation of our public culture is of an order very different from everyone else’s. For big oil, big pharmaceutical companies and the arms industry, it is not simply a case of doing good. For them, sponsorship of the arts is not charity; it is a strategic expenditure.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/26/opin ... ogin-email
Companies cynically use art to build webs of influence and become enmeshed in our lives.
In February, a group of activists smuggled a 13-foot-tall wooden horse inside the British Museum in London. The morning after they were joined by around a thousand people, who gathered inside the building to protest the oil company BP’s sponsorship of an exhibition devoted to the ancient city of Troy. In New York, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art, the Whitney Museum of American Art and the New Museum have all seen protests over their links to issues like the oil and arms trade, gentrification and colonialism. In some cases, trustees have had to leave museum boards in response to the public outrage.
Museums have clearly become a new site of protest. Such protests often provoke a passionate response from both the public and the art world. Perhaps this is because they cut to the heart of art’s social value: What, and whom, are museums for? Another question these protests raise is why art matters so much — not to the public, or even to museums, but to sponsors and donors.
This year marks the fourth anniversary of a turning point for museum protests and sponsorship. In 2016, the Tate museum network became the first major cultural institution in Britain to drop fossil fuel funding, following six years of pressure from activist groups primarily led by the art collective Liberate Tate, of which I was a member. Liberate Tate conducted 16 uninvited performances in Tate spaces, including spilling molasses inside Tate Britain in 2010 during an event celebrating BP’s sponsorship of the institution and bringing a 121-pound chunk of ice harvested from the Arctic to melt inside Tate Modern in 2012.
Tate’s divestment from fossil fuels was followed by similar moves by the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company in Britain, the Mauritshuis in The Hague and the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. Liberate Tate kicked off a new wave of protest performances inside major museums in the United States and Europe, directed at sponsors, donors and trustees. These changes suggest that another kind of museum is possible, but only if cultural institutions are willing to challenge and reshape their role in society.
Sponsors and donors’ valuation of our public culture is of an order very different from everyone else’s. For big oil, big pharmaceutical companies and the arms industry, it is not simply a case of doing good. For them, sponsorship of the arts is not charity; it is a strategic expenditure.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/26/opin ... ogin-email
What the Gates Divorce Means for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
The end of one marriage has implications for the 1,600 staff members who direct $5 billion in annual grants to 135 countries.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation started with ambitions that, by its lofty standards today, appear almost quaint: providing free internet access to public libraries in the United States. As its founders’ objectives grew in scope, so did the foundation’s reach, until it achieved its current position as the pre-eminent private institution in global public health.
With 1,600 staff members directing $5 billion in annual grants to 135 countries around the globe, the Gates Foundation set a new standard for private philanthropy in the 21st century.
All of that was thrown into question on Monday when the world learned that the foundation’s co-chairs, who had been married for 27 years, filed for divorce in Washington State. Grant recipients and staff members alike wondered what would happen and whether it might affect the mission.
The message from the headquarters in Seattle was clear: Bill and Melinda Gates may be splitting up, but the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation isn’t going anywhere. Their roles as co-chairs and trustees are not changing, and they will still set the agenda for the organization that bears their names. In an email on Monday, the Gates Foundation’s chief executive, Mark Suzman, reassured the staff that both Mr. and Ms. Gates remained committed to the organization.
While noting that it was “obviously a difficult time of personal change for” the couple, Mr. Suzman added that “Bill and Melinda asked me explicitly to express their deep gratitude for everything you do every day, particularly during the Covid-19 crisis, as well as for your support and understanding in this difficult time.”
The foundation’s $50 billion endowment is in a charitable trust that is irrevocable. It cannot be removed or divided up as a marital asset, said Megan Tompkins-Stange, a professor of public policy and scholar of philanthropy at the University of Michigan. She noted, however, that there was no legal mandate that would prevent them from changing course.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/busi ... 778d3e6de3
The end of one marriage has implications for the 1,600 staff members who direct $5 billion in annual grants to 135 countries.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation started with ambitions that, by its lofty standards today, appear almost quaint: providing free internet access to public libraries in the United States. As its founders’ objectives grew in scope, so did the foundation’s reach, until it achieved its current position as the pre-eminent private institution in global public health.
With 1,600 staff members directing $5 billion in annual grants to 135 countries around the globe, the Gates Foundation set a new standard for private philanthropy in the 21st century.
All of that was thrown into question on Monday when the world learned that the foundation’s co-chairs, who had been married for 27 years, filed for divorce in Washington State. Grant recipients and staff members alike wondered what would happen and whether it might affect the mission.
The message from the headquarters in Seattle was clear: Bill and Melinda Gates may be splitting up, but the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation isn’t going anywhere. Their roles as co-chairs and trustees are not changing, and they will still set the agenda for the organization that bears their names. In an email on Monday, the Gates Foundation’s chief executive, Mark Suzman, reassured the staff that both Mr. and Ms. Gates remained committed to the organization.
While noting that it was “obviously a difficult time of personal change for” the couple, Mr. Suzman added that “Bill and Melinda asked me explicitly to express their deep gratitude for everything you do every day, particularly during the Covid-19 crisis, as well as for your support and understanding in this difficult time.”
The foundation’s $50 billion endowment is in a charitable trust that is irrevocable. It cannot be removed or divided up as a marital asset, said Megan Tompkins-Stange, a professor of public policy and scholar of philanthropy at the University of Michigan. She noted, however, that there was no legal mandate that would prevent them from changing course.
More...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/busi ... 778d3e6de3