Critiquing Climate Philanthropy

Is philanthropy perpetuating the very problem it seeks to solve?

I am working with Culture Hacks Lab to examine climate philanthropy. The article we published is a deliberately provocative critique of this practice, and indeed the whole way that climate is talked about and addressed. Many in the philanthropy world and beyond claim, for instance, to want ‘systems change’ when in fact all they are actually doing is addressing the outputs of the system, not the system that produces those outputs. And - worse - if you’re not changing the system that causes the problem, arguably you are perpetuating it. Of course, this critique applies to much philanthropy, not just about climate. The article explains what real systems change looks like.

…………………

Culture Hacks Labs has analyzed some of the fundamental assumptions that underpin climate philanthropy.  Our analysis has raised some profound and disturbing questions. We need to critically examine those assumptions, test them against the evidence and, where necessary, alter them.  Above all, we need to talk about them.

In excavating these assumptions, we couldn’t of course get inside the heads of climate philanthropists, but much can be inferred from existing giving patterns alongside some direct testimony from multiple interviews that we have conducted in the sector.

Some of the problems are unsurprising.  For instance, foundations tend to follow the ‘theory of change’ believed by their founder/benefactors, theories in turn often derived from that individual’s (or family’s) own narrow life experience – of tech entrepreneurship or financial trading, for instance.  Evidence is then collected to ‘prove’ the theory, including by beneficiaries or staffers highly incentivized to affirm their donor’s beliefs.  This is the opposite of scientific method, where theory should be deduced from an objective weighing-up of the evidence – then verified through testing.

Good quality empirical evidence of the effectiveness of philanthropic strategies is, overall, very scanty (that absence of data is another sign of the sector’s lamentable lack of transparency).  To take one example: does civil society lobbying and advocacy improve the outcomes from the COPs (the UN’s climate negotiations) or other international processes?  Of course those engaged in such work believe so – as, presumably, do those who fund them – but where is the hard evidence?  There is an urgent need for much greater – and open – research and data collection on the impact of philanthropic strategies.

Pretty much all foundations claim to support the need for ‘partnership’ with the global South.  But does that mean genuine respect for, and adoption of, strategies originating in the South, or does it mean co-opting southern partners (who often resemble their northern counterparts) to ‘northern’ theories of change?  Is western philanthropy genuinely ready to shift power to the global South, for instance by building local eco-systems of civil society that may demand policy not to the North’s liking?  The need for Indigenous voices is, it seems, widely acknowledged – at least by lip service – but are those voices truly heard, or their proposals implemented – in other words, true partnership?  Is genuine – including restorative – justice the goal or is it just a word that adorns philanthropic reports?

Everyone now claims to seek ‘systems change’ but nevertheless much philanthropy focuses on the outputs from the system – the mitigation of carbon emissions, perhaps through technological change or policy shifts, rather than examining the system itself.  The ‘neoliberal’ economic system that produces those outputs is never questioned; its persistence is assumed.  Perhaps unsurprising since it was that system that gave rise to the fortunes that fuel much philanthropy in the first place.

Actual systems change demands a deeper analysis.  The current economic system requires ceaseless growth and expansion and thus inevitable consumption of natural resources and emission of GHGs – unless these can be ‘decoupled’ from growth.  So far, economies have been able to relatively decouple i.e. reduce emissions per unit of production.  There is no convincing evidence that economies have absolutely decoupled i.e. reduced emissions overall while production grows.  Some economies have achieved this temporarily but not consistently.  This makes intuitive sense: unless all elements of the production supply chain are fully decarbonized, any additional production will mean more emissions.  And we are very far from full decarbonization.

If this is the case, the system might itself need to be shifted to a ‘post-growth’ or ‘degrowth’ model, perhaps with regeneration and mutual care prioritised instead of the destructive pursuit of growth (whose benefits, incidentally, largely flow to a tiny few).  Lost in the over-long and obscure text of the most recent IPCC¹ report is the recommendation for ‘demand management’ i.e. reducing consumption.  Instead, policy and philanthropy concentrate almost exclusively on supply side approaches – technology, regulation, international agreements to limit GHGs etc..

Such a systemic shift is cultural and ideological, even linguistic or ontological, as much as practical.  We might start by questioning the basic presumptions of the neo-liberal system – that everyone wants to consume more in the first place, rather than seeking other, perhaps immeasurable, goods (a problematic word in itself in its implication of materiality): community, meaning, solidarity, even spirit. 

Reorienting the system (perhaps starting by reorienting philanthropy) may mean reorienting our foundational presumptions about what we as humans are ‘about’ – our ontology of what we believe to be true or not, including the very words and indices we might use to signify ‘what matters’.  This is true systems change. 

Conversely – and disturbingly – by failing to question the existing system, the ultimate effect of contemporary philanthropy may be covertly to reaffirm and perpetuate the beliefs and mechanisms that have produced the climate crisis.  I prefer to think that this is not intentional.

Paradigmatic change can come about through multiple avenues.  Perhaps philanthropic intervention can be one.  Such interventions are not necessarily costly.  Change is never linear – input A leading to output B (linearity is another common but mistaken assumption in philanthropic change models).  In complex systems – such as the economy or an ecosystem – which factor produces what effect is always unpredictable, non-linear. We can only know by trying. 

Fundamental systems change begins by examining our own role in the system, and what we can do to change it (indeed this may be the only thing we can do to change a system).  Our belief systems, foundational assumptions and biases must all come under scrutiny.  CHL’s research has uncovered multiple problematic assumptions underpinning climate philanthropy today, of which I have listed only a few.  Many in the field might dispute this analysis.  But at a minimum these hitherto unexamined assumptions that guide philanthropy need to be brought to the surface, debated and independent evidence sought to test them.  Either way, a debate is much needed.

As ever, please do comment.

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the UN’s body of scientists who report on climate change (its reports are seminal but terribly badly presented)