It’s OK to benefit from an act of charityTwo incidents this week got me thinking about that old chestnut – are we really being good if an act of charity isn’t totally selfless? The first incident was that I became aware through friends on Facebook of an initiative called Talent for Haiti. I investigated and it turned out that the proprietors of a shop called Bow in Dublin’s Powerscourt Shopping Centre had started this to get people to donate items to an ebay auction they were running in aid of disaster relief for Haiti. Musicians and designers had already given some great stuff but they were also accepting items from those of us with a less creative bent. I brought in some jewellery that I’d never worn and actually felt guilty about having in my wardrobe. They’ll do the work of auctioning it for me which is great. I hadn’t been to the shop before and I was really impressed. It’s a lovely space with gorgeous stock. I commented that the initiative was also a good way of getting visitors to the shop. The two women I was speaking with were a bit embarrassed by this and went to pains to assure me this wasn’t the reason behind their actions. But if you think about it why not? Strictly speaking a business should not be using its resources for any project unless there is a business benefit. To do otherwise is stealing from the owners and shareholders in the business. Not only is it OK for the business to benefit from their charitable act it should be a requirement. I think it’s admirable that this encourages people to learn about the shop and visit it. It’s a great idea, they’re putting effort into it and as well as helping people in dire need they’re getting much needed PR for the shop and for many of the creative people who’ve donated. The second incident was hearing a radio piece (listen here) about the Irish Young Scientist of the Year, Richard O’Shea. It’s clear from the piece that this young man has very socially aware parents who have brought him up to be mindful of those in the world who have less than he does. He’s also very clever. He’s invented a biomass cooker that is designed to use very little fuel and produce no smoke. As well as the obvious benefit this offers to the very poor in developing countries it is also easily constructed from readily available components. He’s said that he doesn’t want to make any money from his invention, just wants to see it being utilized by aid organisations. While this seems laudable I’m not sure it’s right. This stove was 18 months in development. The Richards of this world can’t spend that kind of time on projects that give them no payback. Wouldn’t it be better if he was rewarded for his time and effort so that he can embark on other projects that yield similar benefits for those in most need? Rather than seeing charity as valid only when totally selfless we need to recognize that it’s more likely to happen and to be sustainable in the longer term if the givers also benefit.
Add a CommentYour comment will appear once it has been approved. |