Holding Charities Accountable

When author Michael Conroy spoke at the Carnegie Council recently about his book on the certification revolution that is changing the way corporations behave, I asked him a somewhat controversial but nonetheless pressing question in the nonprofit community: Governments are elected, corporations have stockholders, but to whom are NGOs accountable?

Conroy gave a thoughtful answer, referring to democracy and the markets. In an ideal world, he said, governments that are democratically elected would listen to civil society and the initiatives that this part of civil society is advocating.

Second, these initiatives are calling consumer and business-to-business preferences on a set of values. If civil society pushes for something that the population as a whole doesn’t support, it won’t have much impact. If these advocacy campaigns don’t ring true with consumers, it won’t have impact. It speaks to the democratization of information, he said.

I would add that nonprofits have other effective stakeholders as well: Their funders, their boards, and public opinion. If they aren’t doing good work, their funding will dry up, their boards will force change, and public opinion will exacerbate the first two phenomena. To be sure, as nonprofits become more powerful, it is important to make sure they live up to the values that they espouse.

You can listen to the conversation with Michael Conroy here.

This week, The Wall Street Journal published an insert devoted to the growing philanthropic sector worldwide, focusing on the effectiveness, the power, and the accountability of this happening. On the front page of the insert, Sally Beatty cites some sobering polls taken by NYU scholar Paul Light. Based on a 2006 survey of 1,000 respondents in the United States, the following percentage agreed with these statements: About 71 percent said that charities waste a great deal or a fair amount of money; 44 percent said that directors of charities are paid too much; and only 18 percent said charities do a good job running their programs and are fair in the decisions.

Beatty suggested a three-prong approach to improve charities: 1. provide more information about the challenges and successes of charities; 2. adopt higher standards and better ways of measuring results; and 3. adhere to those standards. She suggests that charities should be more open about the problems they have encountered and publish their travails online.

Speaking of the power of the individual, a chart derived from Giving USA 2007 shows that 75 percent or about $223 billion of giving in 2006 came from individuals. Foundations come in second at 12 percent, bequests third at about 8 percent, and corporations last at 4 percent. But companies are becoming more adept at stepping in to help charities when needed, for example in the case of disasters.

Where does the money go? According to the same article, about 33 percent goes to religion, 14 percent to education, and 10 percent to human services. International affairs, our sector at the Carnegie Council, gets only 4 percent of the pie.

I would like to take this opportunity to show you our new donations web page for our program at the Carnegie Council here. We try to be as open, transparent, and accountable as possible. Please consider giving generously.

(Photo by TW Collins.)

Certification Systems as Risk Mitigation

Goldman Sachs has recently been lauded for its risk mitigation systems, taking actions months before the sub prime mess broke out. Some people have said that Goldman had a more integrated exposure risk mitigation system, while others attributed Goldman’s success to the use of realistic, hardnosed analysis, unclouded by rose colored glasses. What about companies trying to mitigate against brand risk? After all, brand is where much of the value of firms is tied up.

Economist and certification consultant Michael Conroy just spoke at the Carnegie Council about his new book Branded! How the ‘Certification Revolution’ is Transforming Global Corporations. The books and the seats at the lecture were both sold out.

Conroy said that a revolution in standards certification is underway and has been fueled by successful "market campaigns" by NGOs, the development of outside certification systems, the presence of champions for change within companies, and the growing market for ethical products. Market campaigns call attention to social and environmental problems in a corporate supply chain, problems that go beyond the jurisdiction of the WTO.

The growing power of corporate brands is two-sided. While a brand can help establish a company’s dominance in a particular industry, it also makes a company vulnerable to attacks from the public on that brand. A brand value can be estimated as the total value of a company minus its physical assets. Conroy estimated that McDonald’s brand is about 70 percent of its value and that figure is about 64 percent for Coca Cola.

Certification systems are a set of principles, criteria, and indicators negotiated by all stakeholders impacted by a company’s operations. The result of these negotiations is the highest politically accepted standard. These standards allow consumers and civil society to be more nuanced in signaling their preferences to companies—beyond just saying, “Stop what you are doing!”

The relationship between civil society and corporations allows companies to positively mitigate against brand risk. Certification systems are risk management systems against future attacks on brands, says Conroy.

It was a fascinating discussion and certainly a tribute to the growing power of NGOs. The audio from this event will be up on the Carnegie Council's online magazine Policy Innovations, a project that Conroy also was instrumental in helping to start.

Stay tuned.