That's what the authors of Philanthrocapitalism say in their blog: "We argue in the book that philanthrocapitalists need to be transparent about their work if they are to be legitimate".
This is precisely what they mention several times in the final chapter of their book. Below are a few quotes.
p. 271: "... there is a need for rankings based on what philanthropists achieve with their giving. Among other things that will require much greater transparency about what money is given to and how it is used, combined with a serious impact analysis and public debate. Without such transparency, it will be no surprise if the public becomes increasingly skeptical about philanthropy's effectiveness..."
p. 277: "Much will depend on wether the new philanthropic intermediaries, from New Philanthropy Capital to Bridgespan, succeed in making the world of giving more transparent and more serious about measuring and debating impact. That in turn will depend on wether philanthropists are willing to volunteer accurate information about their performance, and especially their failures, when it is easier simply to talk about how much they have given and accept the plaudits.
In turn the media, politicians and civil society should engage constructively in the debate about the proper role and the impact of philanthropy- and if they are wise, philanthropists should encourage and lead that debate..."
Comments