Why not sit at the same table?
Funds supported by several companies and dedicated to a single field can create real and sustainable change.
Text by Roxana Sofică and Ioana Szatmari
In recent years, companies have understood that a healthy CSR is more than just annual funding. We see, timidly, how multiannual funds appear, through which non-governmental organizations are supported for a longer period more than the bi-regulation of results on paper, but a serious impact among the beneficiaries.
Budgets are rising. There are now funds of 500,000-1,000,000 euros directed to organizations in a certain field. Even though most of it ends up in the area of health infrastructure (where needs and costs are high), part of this money is directed to areas such as citizens' rights and civil liberties, minorities and the environment.
Each fund has its own specificity and mode of intervention, and even if we set up ten funding funds dedicated to environmental organisations, the impact will remain low. That's because everyone has their priorities, they want certain interventions, certain results.
But what if I had five funds in one? How would the lives of organizations, and especially their work, improve if five companies — each with a million euros at hand — sat at the same table?
In order to be able to initiate such common funds, we should put together some necessary criteria:
- Those who invest in funds should be willing to work alongside other partners, so understand that they do not invest exclusively / are not the best in the field. There is no competition on promoting the contribution of the members of the funds.
- To devote time, energy, knowledge to strengthening the fund and development directions.
- Let there be a common understanding of the values underlying the fund's officials.
The establishment of a common fund shows that grantmakers (specialists from companies and organizations) have reached a level of maturity and strategic thinking in which the problem and the solutions found to solve it come first. That means these grantmakers are working together to create a common design of that fund. They start from their own ideas and experience to find the most effective work model. It shows flexibility, progressive thinking and openness to find other work models than the ones each of them have.
More importantly, such a project shows a kind of modesty: a single financier is aware does not own the solution on his own and that together they can be stronger. The key element for this to happen is the trust between the partners and the openness with which they start on the road. There will certainly be sensitive moments, and in order to manage them healthily, trust is needed.
How does it work?
The advantages for companies and organizations are numerous, but we are going through a few. First, a larger background means a more complex vision, where the change it generates is easier to track and measure. When two or more funders work together, the resources are significantly higher and the impact is greater. The common funds could respond on a different scale to the identified needs and in a shorter time. More coherent, because they pursue a common vision.
Continuity of projects is easier to ensure. CSR/community investment budgets can vary from one year to the next in the case of a company. But when budgets are managed in a common fund, the effects of variations in individual budgets are minimized, and organizations can more easily build their strategies and interventions.
Efficiency of administration. Efficiency comes from two directions. On the one hand, organizations apply for a single fund, and the communication and administration effort is unique, they do not have to invest time and resources to access and implement more funding. On the other hand, from the perspective of managing the fund, the effort is greatly simplified than if there are more funds: there is, for example, no risk of overlap and difficulty distinguishing between different funds.
Democratic access to resources. Several community partners of different sizes and with diverse expertise can be selected. Joint funds can also be structured according to the size of the partners and their expertise.
Space can be created for the development of community partners. When the fund is large enough, resources for investments can be dedicated to increasing the capacity of partners. The initiators of the joint funds can also assume the role of coagulation and stimulation of the learning processes between the funded projects, so as to create networks that develop the approached subject. In addition, once the resources are in a common fund, the willingness to invest in in-depth research for the field approached increases.
Diversified resources. Each participant in the fund can bring several types of resources, beyond the financial ones. There may be contributions to know-how/expertise, human resource, in-kind, technical or physical infrastructure, etc.
Systemic impact versus point-to-point impact. Once the creators of the funds produce a significant impact, they have information of context and depth, become a benchmark for those working in the field and can become generators and carriers of change in relation to the authorities in that field.
A common design of a grant program means the exchange of ideas, experience and expertise of grantmakers. The idea itself that two or more grantmakers or companies should ally themselves to solve a problem that I see important, emphasizes the importance and size of the problem. This problem is so big and so relevant that there are different companies coming together and making a common fund to solve it. That's where others can come from.
The idea of partnership can also be extended to grantees, which may have a common space to generate solutions, to act together, to cover different areas or needs, to synchronize or calibrate interventions.
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
No comment yet, add your voice below!