As I see it, most major philanthropists have been bullied into giving. They feel social pressure to give. It has become a cost of doing business.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Shouldn't you put the same amount of effort into your giving as you might for your for-profit investments? After all, philanthropy is an investment, and one in which lives - not profits - are at stake.
Much corporate giving is charitable in nature rather than philanthropic.
There is a place and a time for philanthropy, and there is only so much money you can give away.
Today, we don't blink an eye when the world's wealthiest individuals donate enormous sums of money to charitable causes. In fact, we expect them to do so.
In philanthropy, many of us give a little bit and each year we give more and more to see what actually works and not just throw money out there and see if it's going to work. If the government did the same thing, fabulous.
Most philanthropists would still rather donate to elite schools, concert halls or religious groups than help the poor or sick.
Privacy about giving is counterproductive. There is solid scientific research showing that people are more likely to give if they can see that others are giving. The richest people, in particular, should be setting an example.
Too many have dispensed with generosity in order to practice charity.
Some charities treat donors like cash machines. Until now there hasn't been any effective way for them to provide a more personal or interactive giving experience.
Most philanthropists want to be effective altruists. But the problem isn't intention: it's measurement. Unlike financial investing, which has reporting standards, audit processes, and educational requirements, social investing is notoriously tricky to evaluate.
No opposing quotes found.