NEW DIRECTIONS FOR PHILANTHROPIC FUNDRAISING, NO. 46, WINTER 2004 © WILEY PERIODICALS, INC.

121

This chapter aims to influence thinking aboutinternational fundraising by using practical exam-ples of multinational resource mobilization. It illus-trates the value of developing local will and skill toachieve sustainable results.

11Multinational philanthropy: An opportunity to develop local will and skill

Richard Hamilton

“NOT INVENTED HERE” is a powerful argument to discourage newideas and limit changes in society. You could say it is the cousin of“we haven’t given because nobody asked us.” The very wordfundraising can often provoke an instant reaction. Add to that theword international, and there are likely to be as many strong opin-ions as there are people around the table. “Le problème c’est lephilosophie”––basically the problem is what is behind your think-ing, as stated by one contributor to the discussion at a recent con-ference of the L’Union pour la Générosité––the French Associationof Fund Raisers.

India has a long-standing tradition of piety and charity that can betraced back nearly twenty-five hundred years to Emperor Ashoka.His wheel of righteousness, Dharmachakra, adorns the Indiannational flag, and his triple lions are the national insignia. We shouldnot be surprised, then, when our Indian colleagues quietly point out

122 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON FUNDRAISING

that in India, one talks of “resource mobilization,” which includesthe human and material resources of voluntary organizations, notjust money and fundraising.

You will have read in the other chapters that there is full agree-ment on both the substance and importance of the basic principlesof fundraising. Principles cross boundaries. Legal, registration, andfiscal matters will clearly be different, even within one nationalboundary like India or Switzerland, where there can be up totwenty-six variations in taxation, language, or religion. Technicalconcerns like methods of payment, the availability of postal ser-vices, and telephones are manageable. The local communities andvoluntary organizations in many parts of India, Asia, and Africahave developed their own innovative solutions. Many of these areenormously more effective and certainly dramatically cheaper thansomething from the outside.

Culture is frequently used as the all-embracing reason that we(the in-comers, as we would be called in many countries or com-munities) give when people react, respond, and are motivated in adifferent way than we might expect or indeed want. In practice, itis much more complex than just one word. For example, recogni-tion is another sensitive area for the unwary. In broad terms, theAnglo-Saxon assumption is that donors, both relatively smallergivers but especially major donors, not only want to be recognizedbut expect to be. In France––and I suggest ten or more countriesin southern Europe and most of Asia––any such assumption wouldbe catastrophic, according to Jon Duschinsky, the director of theFrench Association of Fundraisers, because wealth is very difficultto identify and certainly never flaunted. This is supported by theindication that it was only in the 1980s that the United Statesreplaced France as the major nation with the largest gap betweenthe rich and poor.

The name of an organization is like a flag. It sends a message toboth the donor public and those involved in the spending of money.If both parts of the constituency are in the same locality, this shouldnot be an issue. Adding the word international to a name, as manyorganizations do, is a result of sending money from one country to

123MULTINATIONAL PHILANTHROPY

another. Other organizations are truly multinational because theyhave both recognized and developed the appropriate relationshipsand skills to raise money and use resources effectively in manycountries. This is a complex subject, involving a multitude of issuesincluding governance, legal structures, and relationships.

You will certainly be familiar with your own examples of local ornational organizations that have made a difference outside theircountries, and we should never overlook the enormous value ofthese initiatives. On a more planned and organized scale, we canfind specific areas of philanthropic need and concern that are muchbetter addressed on a regional or worldwide basis. The most obvi-ous examples include medical research, the environment, humanrights, human need, refugees, and emergency relief in response tonatural disasters. There are other organizations, many of whichhave evolved with multinational structures for various reasons.

The cause and treatment of most major diseases are the samewherever they occur. The global pharmaceutical companies arestructured and organized accordingly, not least of all to maximizeresults and profits. Even the United Nations has its numerous spe-cialist agencies. Too frequently, the same is not true in the non-profit sector, where there is an understandable history of “buildingnational castles.”

Fortunately, there are some excellent models to follow. In themedical field, these include worldwide nonprofit organizations forosteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, andseveral others. Unfortunately, there are some major absences aswell. The environment, human rights, and humanitarian and emer-gency relief activities all have worldwide organizations with well-known names. It may help if we first look at the hard-wonexperiences of some of the organizations already mentioned toextend best practice on a truly global scale.

Over the past ten years, the chief executives or directors offundraising employed by over thirty of the larger truly multina-tional organizations have met (between eight and twelve at anyannual meeting) under the auspices of the Resource Alliance’sInternational Fundraising Congress. The number of countries in

124 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON FUNDRAISING

which each organization operates varies from about 40 to over 130,and there has never been any doubt or question in any participant’smind that the basic principles of fundraising apply universally. Theskill is in how to adapt these principles so they meet country reg-ulations and local operational circumstances in a socially accept-able and cost-effective way. With a few exceptions, this has beendone successfully, but there are too many examples where othershave blithely assumed that all they have to do is just transfer thesystem and all will be well.

In the same way that commercial company training schemesexpand their skill base, multinational nonprofits have developedtheir versions of share and compare, skill share, or just plainfundraising training programs and workshops. One of the first inthe field was the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1981. Withtwenty-two national organizations actively raising money fromMalaysia to Mexico and Norway to New Zealand, WWF increasedits worldwide income tenfold in nine years and the number of sup-porters from 500,000 to over 5 million. Certainly it benefited fromthe “green wave” (and Greenpeace, with its skill share approach,did well too), but the underlying investment in both organizationswas in having the best local staff, providing good training, sharingbest practices, and concentrating on basic principles.

One point that is easily overlooked by organizations attracted bythe fundraising potential in another country is that the money doesnot “belong” to them. Raising money from one country across afrontier is akin to fishing in your neighbor’s pond. At a minimum,it is likely to cause bad feelings, and at worst it leads to open con-flict. This can apply even within the same organization unless thereare clear guidelines about who fishes where. Some lessons, espe-cially in the areas of sponsorship and licensing, can be very expen-sive if they are not precise.

Expanding activities into another country will almost certainlybe in competition with an existing national organization, so onemust do all the necessary thinking and planning. The most com-mon consequence is to upset or confuse existing and potential

125MULTINATIONAL PHILANTHROPY

donors, with the result that they will not give to either organiza-tion. The “poacher” is blamed, and reputations are on the line. Incontrast, fundraising done with proper research and planning canbring rewarding results.

Developing local will and skill is the key to developing orexpanding an organization’s work in new countries. Althoughfundraising will be the most easily measured activity, it can neversucceed in isolation. Even more to the point, lasting success willcome only if those responsible are genuinely respected and rootedin the country or locality concerned and are prepared for a longroad ahead. The plan will include developing local volunteer boardor trustee leadership to work with key staff members. As we know,this is seldom easy anywhere, but sometimes as few as two or threepeople are enough to act as the spark.

A lot of attention has rightly been focused on the relationshipbetween nonprofit organizations in the more affluent countries andthose based in developing economies. Given time and some care-ful research, there can be a natural basis to develop a mutual bene-fit partnership agreement, which will not only avoid conflict orcompetition but work to the significant benefit of all concerned,especially those in whose name the money has been raised and isbeing spent.

One example is the Guide to Treatment and Management of Mul-tiple Sclerosis (Polman, Thompson, Murray, and McDonald, 2001),which is produced for the benefit of over 5 million people withmultiple sclerosis, their families, and their careers wherever theylive in the world. It is organized by the MS International Federa-tion as one of the four key services to the seventy-five nationalmember or affiliated societies. The cost is met from special addi-tional sponsorship.

An investment in developing local will and skill should be pre-sented in the same context as a program or project, not a fundrais-ing cost. Some people would put it in the same category as the nowfashionable capacity building, but care must be taken that it doesnot lose focus and get subsumed into some grandiose scheme.

126 GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON FUNDRAISING

Scarce though resources are, there is a lot of expertise and experi-ence available. For example, over thirty countries now have flour-ishing associations of fundraisers, and more are being formed everyyear. Most have annual conferences, and the majority run trainingprograms and workshops.

The Resource Alliance is a nonprofit and charitable organiza-tion. Although best known for the flagship annual InternationalFund Raising Conference, the bulk of its activities are focused onresource mobilization in developing economies. The worldwideprogram of workshops is run by people from each region in East-ern and Southern Africa, Asia Pacific, South Asia, East and CentralEurope, and Latin America. There are local staff members colo-cated in the offices of partner organizations in Nairobi, Budapest,and Manila.

If you ask in the right places, you will certainly find a group ofpeople who understand the benefits from this approach. Even ifthey are working in a closely similar field or geographical area, thechances are they will be pleased to share their experiences. Thereare no secrets in this way of thinking and huge potential benefits.

ReferencePolman, C. H., Thompson, A. J., Murray, T. J., and McDonald, W. I. (eds.).

The Guide to Treatment and Management of Multiple Sclerosis. New York:Demos, 2001.

richard hamilton is founder and president of Future Indicative in theUnited Kingdom, an international fundraising consultancy.