Women led philanthropy


Published on

Academy of Philanthropy workshop on “Women in Philanthropy: Why Women” in Septemmber 2013. Professor Jenny Harrow presented an overview of the landscapes of women-led philanthropy, contrasting the theme of women’s empathy and understanding (“getting the philanthropy idea more quickly and with more effect”) with the theme of women’s power and the case for “here come the girls!”.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Women led philanthropy

  1. 1. The Academy of Philanthropy Workshop Cass Business School 23 September 2013 “Women in Philanthropy: Why Women?” ‘The landscape of women-led philanthropy and giving’ Professor Jenny Harrow ESRC Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy Cass Business School, City University London , UK. www.shaw-trust.org.uk
  2. 2. Two contrasting and overarching themes for characterising this ‘landscape’ the theme of understanding and empathy since women are in a less advantaged position than men , so they will ‘get’ the philanthropy idea more quickly and with more effect……. www.shaw-trust.org.uk
  3. 3. the theme of power “Here Come the Girls” It’s time for women to be upfront in a philanthropy takeover …… what would philanthropy look like if it was wholly women –dominated? www.shaw-trust.org.uk
  4. 4. 4 interlocking aspects of ‘women and philanthropy’ • women as philanthropists • philanthropy‘s focus on women and ‘women’s issues’ • women as philanthropy professionals • women as beneficiaries of philanthropy www.shaw-trust.org.uk
  5. 5. www.shaw-trust.org.uk
  6. 6. Women as Beneficiaries of Philanthropy Philanthropy’s focus on Women Women as Philanthropists Women as Philanthropy Professionals www.shaw-trust.org.uk
  7. 7. All four characterisations have risks attached • Women as philanthropists : can play into stereotypes e.g. on pro - social behaviour; makes women less visible? • Philanthropy’s focus on women : can become too familiar ( ‘the investment in women’ as habitual phraseology); can ‘women’s issues ‘ be packaged ? • Women as philanthropy professionals : ‘fit work for women’ (i.e. the power of philanthropy is enough…) • Women as beneficiaries : powerlessnness is made even more clear ….. www.shaw-trust.org.uk
  8. 8. They prompt critical questions for reflecting on ‘why women?’ will cultivating a female donor always be a better idea? Should fundraisers focus instead in equal pay issues? Or just getting women into business – the female ‘philanthropreneur’? Should women contribute predominantly or solely to women’s causes? Or be more eclectic funders? What attention should we pay to women givers on low as well as high incomes? What are the gender challenges around consumption philanthropy and celebrity philanthropy? What do we do (and what should women do ) about ‘non givers’? www.shaw-trust.org.uk What happens when women get tired of giving?
  9. 9. What does research tell us? for example, about • women’s greater ( individual ) generosity (Leslie 2013, Mesch et al 2011) • Women and strategic decisionmaking on firms’ philanthropy (Marquis ,Lee, 2012) • Women as re –shapers of philanthropy (Eikenberry, 2009) and activists (Daly 2010) • Women’s philanthropy decisions as complementary (Helms and McKenzie, 2013, Pharoah and McKenzie, 2013) • Women investors influencing CSR decisions in firms (Nath et al, 2012) • Celebrity philanthropy among women (Bennett,2013) • Consumerist philanthropy and women (Eikenberry 2009) • Women as beneficiaries and agents of change (Arutyunova, 2012) • Women as leaders in philanthropy – context, culture, careers (Jarboe 2012, Harrow 2006) www.shaw-trust.org.uk
  10. 10. The UK context – 1.‘the good or the bad news’? - Women leaders in private and charity sectors (Jarboe, Benchmarking study, 2012) % women directors % women chairs FTSE 100 15% 1% Charity 100 by funds 27% 9% board seats – the majority are held by men ; among charities’ top 100 for assets (foundations) 73% 9 charities in the highest net assets list have a majority of female trustees 11 in the top 100 by funding have a majority of female trustees women are the most senior officer in 35% of all charities with a majority of female trustees Parity on boards is very rare – 4 in the top 100 have 50% gender balance www.shaw-trust.org.uk
  11. 11. The UK context –2. Complementary philanthropy by women and men ; capturing true levels of giving Pharoah et al,2013, CGAP Cass, Study of remittances and charitable donations in the UK Traditional giving surveys fail to capture true levels of giving; yet remittances are a recognised part of international development aid Findings show a significant level of sacrifice made by those who remit Households that remit money overseas are also likely to give to charity: see ‘Nazmui’ and ‘Awale’ in the report
  12. 12. How then do we visualise ‘women and philanthropy’ and its goals? Goals of Equality; parity; visibility; diversity; inclusion? (Shaw –Hardy et al 2010) Collaborative ; distinctive; transparent ; recognised ? preferential (deferential); democratic? within civil society; outside and beyond civil society? Do we visualise ‘women and philanthropy’ too narrowly? Or too broadly? www.shaw-trust.org.uk
  13. 13. www.shaw-trust.org.uk
  14. 14. What does leadership in women’s philanthropy look like? (what would philanthropy look like if it was wholly women –dominated?) Introducing our two key speakers…… www.shaw-trust.org.uk
  15. 15. References Arutyunova, A. (2012). ‘Investing’in Women’s Rights: Challenges and new trends. Development, 55(3), 305-310. Bennett, L. (2013). ‘If we stick together we can do anything’: Lady Gaga fandom, philanthropy and activism through social media. Celebrity Studies, (ahead-of-print), 115. Daly, S. (2010). Young women as activists in contemporary Egypt: Anxiety, leadership, and the next generation. Journal of Middle East Women's Studies, 6(2), 59-85. Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). Giving circles: Philanthropy, voluntary association, and democracy. Indiana University Press. Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). The hidden costs of cause marketing. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7(3), 51-55. Harrow, J., & Mole, V. (2005). “I want to move once I have got things straight”: Voluntary sector chief executives' career accounts. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(1), 79-100. Helms, S., & McKenzie, T. (2013). Gender Differences in Formal and Informal Volunteering in Germany. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1-18. Jarboe, N. (2012) Charity Leaders 2012, Benchmarking the participation of women in the UK’s largest charities, WomenCount, no place of publication, http:// women-count.org/Women-Count-Report-2012.pdf Kemp, E., Kennett-Hensel, P. A., & Kees, J. (2013). Pulling on the Heartstrings: Examining the Effects of Emotions and Gender in Persuasive Appeals. Journal of Advertising, 42(1), 69-79. Leslie, L. M., Snyder, M., & Glomb, T. M. (2013). Who gives? Multilevel effects of gender and ethnicity on workplace charitable giving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 49. Marquis, C., & Lee, M. (2012). Who is governing whom? Executives, governance, and the structure of generosity in large US firms. Strategic Management Journal.,34, 483-497 Mesch, D. J., Brown, M. S., Moore, Z. I., & Hayat, A. D. (2011). Gender differences in charitable giving. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16(4), 342-355. Nath, L., Holder-Webb, L., & Cohen, J. (2012). Will Women Lead the Way? Differences in Demand for Corporate Social Responsibility Information for Investment Decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-18. www.shaw-trust.org.uk Pharoah, C. and McKenzie, T. (2013) Giving Back to communities of residence and of origin, CGAP Cass Business School and Trust for London Shaw-Hardy, S., Taylor, M. A., & Beaudoin-Schwartz, B. (2010). Women and philanthropy: Boldly shaping a better world. Wiley. com.