The Ethics of Entrepreneurial Philanthropy

Abstract

A salient if under researched feature of the new age of global inequalities is the rise to prominence of entrepreneurial philanthropy, the pursuit of transformational social goals through philanthropic investment in projects animated by entrepreneurial principles. Super-wealthy entrepreneurs in this way extend their suzerainty from the domain of the economic to the domains of the social and political. We explore the ethics and ethical implications of entrepreneurial philanthropy through systematic comparison with what we call customary philanthropy, which preferences support for established institutions and social practices. We analyse the ethical statements made at interview by 24 elite UK philanthropists, 12 customary and 12 entrepreneurial, to reveal the coexistence of two ethically charged narratives of elite philanthropic motivations, each instrumental in maintaining the established socioeconomic order. We conclude that entrepreneurial philanthropy, as an ostensibly efficacious instrument of social justice, is ethically flawed by its unremitting impulse toward ideological purity.

Elite philanthropy in the United States and United Kingdom in the new age of inequalities

“…Harvey et al. (2020a), consistent with Mair and Hehenberger (2014) and Horvath and Powell (2016), distinguish between what they label customary and entrepreneurial philanthropy. Customary philanthropy preferences support for established institutions and social practices in the ancient tradition of alms giving, relieving the suffering of the poor and disadvantaged and nurturing valued organizations and institutions.…”

“…Duquette (2018, p. 25) concludes that ‘higher income inequality is associated with a reduced share of income given by the rich’. Moreover, given that some super‐wealthy people do commit substantial shares of income to philanthropy, it is evident that many others in effect are reputational free‐riders benefitting from the heightened tolerance of inequality won by their more generous counterparts (Harvey et al., 2020a).…”

“…The ultimate purpose of elite philanthropy, whether by design or systemic response to structural conditions, is to legitimate and make palatable the extreme inequalities generated by the forward march of global capitalism. Philanthropy provides elites with a justification for extreme inequalities that cannot otherwise be ethically or rationally justified, enabling them to ‘hide’ behind emotionally charged discourses of giving at scale (Harvey et al., 2020a; Thorup, 2013). The entrepreneurial rhetoric of market‐oriented and transformational philanthropy, for example, in asserting that all lives have equal value, positions elite philanthropy as fundamentally apolitical, a pragmatic means of liberating people to achieve their full potential as human beings, equipped to join the swelling ranks of ‘global market subjects’ (Mitchell & Sparke, 2016).…”

The Role of Mediators in Diffusing the Community Foundation Model of Philanthropy

“…Elite actors who operate within the field of power possess high levels of cultural, social and symbolic capital and apply these in promoting causes to which they are committed (Harvey & Maclean, 2008). Some causes are pursued to secure organizational or even personal advantage, but others are motivated altruistically with the intention of benefiting society-at-large (Harvey et al, 2020).…”

Philanthropy and the Contribution of Andrew Carnegie to Corporate Social Responsibility

“…In the scientific field, this concept has been a subject of interest to researchers for over a century now, both in academics and in economic reality. As a consequence, a multiplication of approaches to CSR has occurred [2][3][4][5][6], and the world of science experiences both a strong support for the paradigm introduced by Carnegie and its primal contribution to corporate social responsibility [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15], as well as critical opinions of it [16,17]. In 1889, Carnegie proposed philanthropy principles [18], the backbone of which were charity and trust (in last decade of the nineteenth century, human relations management problems and environmental protections issues were not the subject of organizational consideration).…”