A diverse group took a close look at where philanthropy could and should go in the coming years. Despite worries about increasingly negative scrutiny in future, our aim was to encourage more giving, at every level. Motives for giving were many and various, but the most important influences probably came from peers and communities. In the end most philanthropists wanted to make a positive difference, reflecting their personal passions and choices. This should be respected. Engaging in a cause could also be creative and highly rewarding.
Creating a more positive culture for philanthropy was vital. This meant above all stories about effective action, and attractive role models. Philanthropy needed to be seen as ‘cool’. Meanwhile the issues about effectiveness and accountability could not be dodged. Outcomes mattered as well as intentions. Greater professionalism, more sophisticated intermediaries and better training could make a real difference.
Philanthropy should be more about risk-taking, innovation and strategic change than gap-filling. The potential multiplier effect was important. Philanthropists should not just be substitutes for government cuts. The relationship with governments was tricky in general. Preserving independence was critical. But working with them was also important, including clear messages about what philanthropists wanted from them, beyond incentives and light regulation.
Technology would no doubt transform the sector in the next few years, but it was less easy to say exactly how. Social media were already changing giving habits, and making accountability more bottom-up. Big challenges were how to reflect the new generation’s desire to invest in entrepreneurial ways; and how to create effective new hybrid models, bringing together the commercial and the charitable. A closer relationship with business was generally desirable. Business itself could do a lot more, including through employee payroll opt-in giving schemes. Other major issues included greater transparency, better data, and more information-sharing and collaboration within the sector.
We also discussed the international angle: different cultures in different countries, and how to encourage giving in emerging economies; the role and importance of country to country giving compared to investment and remittance flows; and whether cross-border philanthropic cooperation could become the norm.
We concluded that philanthropy would be needed more than ever in the future, given the huge challenges the world faced, and the declining power and resources of governments.
Introduction
Ten years after Ditchley last discussed the subject, it was high time for another look at philanthropy. We were keen not to replay the same arguments, though some of the issues are inevitably still there, and to focus instead on what philanthropy might look like in the future. We also had a much more diverse group, geographically and otherwise, than the largely Anglo-Saxon dominated participants of ten years ago (itself an illustration of how Ditchley has developed in the meantime). Gender diversity was also good on this occasion, with almost equal representation of the sexes. Expert, no-nonsense chairmanship kept us on the straight and narrow during the formal sessions, and there was also a great buzz to the interaction outside the round-table debates.
Encouraging philanthropy
Our starting point was to understand what motivated today’s philanthropists, as a necessary preliminary to working out how they might behave in the future. There were many answers to this question, just as there were many different kinds of giving, and many different sectors into which to contribute. These were essentially personal choices and passions, often influenced by particular life events or role models. Desires to make a difference, to be immortalised, to be recognised/rewarded/accepted, and to ‘legitimise’ wealth were all important. Tax incentives were clearly valuable. But they were not seen as fundamental to decisions about giving. For example, most of the biggest donations in the US had come before income tax had even been invented there. Devices such as honours systems and naming of buildings or institutions after donors could be very effective, and were also cheap!
The most significant influences on potential philanthropists were thought to be from peers and communities, geographical or otherwise. Philanthropy could be a way of belonging to a community or a club. It was also a way of engaging, intellectually and otherwise, with ideas and causes, and creating something. This went well beyond the writing of cheques, and could lead to great satisfaction, and indeed joy. This element, also described by some as ‘fun’, was too often ignored. Individual philanthropists in the room asked what point there could otherwise be to the making of money? What would you say to your children on your deathbed if you had not used your money to make the world a better place in some way? Making a difference, ‘putting a brick in the wall’, was fundamental.
Why then were so many wealthy, particularly newly wealthy, individuals not contributing more, or indeed at all? Some were still too busy making money, and others had clearly not really thought about what to do with their wealth. Encouraging them to do so was all about telling effective stories about the difference they could make, and finding peers and communities who could draw them in. Philanthropy needed to be seen as cool, especially for the younger generation. The philanthropy seed also needed to be planted early, if possible at school, so that it would be a natural part of life later on, when time and resources were likely to make large-scale giving more possible.
New ways of giving were also needed, since the new generation were not necessarily interested in ‘old-fashioned’ foundations, and were looking for something more entrepreneurial: investment, not just giving. Hence the rise of so-called hybrid organisations which were neither classical charities nor commercial enterprises: social entrepreneurs, social impact investors and the like. Some argued that this was where the future lay.
One recurring theme was the relationship between philanthropy and the current crisis of capitalism, exemplified by growing income and wealth gaps. Attacks on bankers’ bonuses were only a symptom of a potential ‘perfect storm’ to come if nothing changed. Governments were of course tempted to see philanthropists as the solution to some of their immediate funding problems, but the issue went deeper than this. If the wealthy did not find effective and sustainable ways of using their resources, the crisis would only deepen. In that sense a new social contract was needed to justify and legitimise wealth accumulation. At the same time, the crisis could be an opportunity for philanthropy, because many of the rich were looking for ways to legitimise and spread their wealth.
The culture of philanthropy
Part of encouraging philanthropy was creating an overall culture in which it was normal and natural to give, and giving was regarded by society as legitimate and worthwhile. The young should be engaged as early as possible in the habit of volunteering and giving. Public small-scale giving was not only hugely important in itself. It could also lead to large-scale philanthropy in later life.
If philanthropists were currently being poorly understood by the rest of the population, as we felt they often were, that meant they were not finding the right language and messages, and needed to change both. If the media had become cynical and sometimes downright negative, that was no doubt partly a reflection of general trends of distrusting everything and everyone, but again it suggested that philanthropists needed to find better ways of communicating and engaging. Catchier slogans such as ‘private power for good’ were needed. The wealthy were too often not seen as making a strategic difference, but engaging in charity to make themselves feel better, or to take advantage of tax breaks.
Other approaches included making giving as easy and comfortable as possible; creating more networks, local and sectoral; using celebrities more, and more imaginatively; and presenting philanthropy as a mutual exchange and flow of benefits for individuals and communities. Movements such as the Gates-inspired Giving Pledge could also make a real difference – even in places like China, despite the negative press reports about the recent visit.
We discussed how far different countries had different cultural approaches to philanthropy. There were major differences even within the so-called Anglo-Saxon world, eg between the US, Canada and the UK, but more so between that world and continental Europe, and even more still where the emerging economies were concerned. Part of this could be the need for institutions and models to emerge in countries where wealth had only recently begun to spread. But attitudes and practices might well remain very different. As in other areas, there could well be leapfrogging of traditional models to new technologies and techniques from which the ‘west’ could learn in turn.
The aims of philanthropy
What should philanthropy be for in the modern world? Should philanthropists be filling gaps left by governments, or taking risks and innovating, producing ideas which others such as governments could take to scale? Both, no doubt, but what should be the balance between the two? Again we recognised that there could be no simple answers. Philanthropy took many forms. Giving for the arts, for example, was not the same as trying to find answers to pressing social problems. A lot of giving was to religious causes or higher education, particularly but not only in the US. Grant-making foundations were not the same as individuals with their personal passions.
But most participants thought that philanthropists should in the end be taking risks, and trying to promote solutions, not simply gap-filling or doing governments’ dirty work for them at a time of austerity. Philanthropy could be seen as strategic, while charity could be seen as responsive. It could be compared to acupuncture, ie the application of a little money in one place could have a significant multiplier effect elsewhere. Unfortunately this kind of approach was often absent in practice. For example, many foundations tended to be conservative, more worried about preserving their capital base than making a strategic difference.
A key idea for many philanthropists was leveraging their money, to attract funding and support from elsewhere if a good approach had been identified. In the right circumstances they could bring government, the private sector and civil society together. Such partnerships were essential to making philanthropy effective. In this sense philanthropists should aim to be engaged leaders, not just financiers.
Some participants suggested that the trend was towards financing projects rather than institutions, with Gates leading the way through his work on eradicating major global diseases. People wanted involvement in great causes like this, where the outcomes could be measured. Others queried what this meant in practice. There had to be institutions of some kinds to channel money, and provide the necessary logistics, even if current models of foundations and charities were beginning to look outdated.
Effectiveness and Accountability
Some participants were inclined to query whether we really should be encouraging more philanthropy in modern liberal societies when the accountability of philanthropists was increasingly under question. How could we know how much good was being done, and whether this was the best use of the money involved? Was philanthropy not just a more rewarding way of spending money for the wealthy – ‘comfort consumption’? But most saw this as unnecessarily negative. There were certainly issues about transparency and accountability, and the possibility of greater criticism in the future, not least from users of the new social media. Bottom-up accountability would be increasingly important.
But most philanthropists were simply trying to do some good, and most were succeeding. In any case an increasing proportion of the world’s wealth was in private hands, and philanthropy was the best available way of using at least some of it for public benefit. We needed more philanthropy, not less. Celebrating and congratulating philanthropists, not beating them up, was the way to achieve this. Personal choices and passions were a vital part of philanthropy and could not be bypassed. If someone was determined to set up, say, the 98th cat charity in the UK, he or she might well not ultimately be swayed by arguments about how many there were already, or the value of other ways of spending the money. If so, that had to be respected.
Nevertheless the argument about effectiveness could not be dodged. Good intentions were certainly the key to most philanthropic acts, but were not enough. There also needed to be good outcomes. While the heart had to be the driving force of giving, the head had still to be there about how to give and how to make sure it made the difference sought. Professionalism had improved greatly in recent years, but was still far from universal. Transparency was still patchy, at best. Collaboration was largely absent from the sector, extraordinarily. Systematic data about who was doing what and how well things worked was also mostly missing, though there was now more academic research than before. If tax relief was given on philanthropic giving, this created an obligation to be both effective and accountable to taxpayers, at least in a broad sense.
Philanthropic institutions and charities could also too easily become complacent. While new ones were constantly being created, very few ever disappeared. Their aims and effectiveness should be re-examined every year, internally, for relevance. There was also a strong case for more mergers between NGOs and charities, since numbers were disproportionately high. ‘Merger fairs’ were one useful device to this end.
Philanthropy and governments
This issue provoked particularly lively debate. The most important point for most participants was that philanthropists should remain independent. They were a key part of civil society, which was the vital third leg of the stool of our current model of society, with government and the private sector the other two legs. Too close an embrace by government had therefore to be avoided at all costs. Governments should be ‘grateful but nervous’ when philanthropists were in the room. Some argued that the best thing government could do for philanthropists was to stay out of the way.
At the same time cooperation with government was essential for many philanthropic activities, and an open dialogue was necessary. Governments had a vital role to play in ensuring the incentives for philanthropy were there, not just in terms of favourable tax and other regimes, but also recognition.
Governments could also create barriers to philanthropy by over-zealous regulation. If tax relief was granted, it was reasonable for governments to impose some minimum standards of transparency and governance, but these could too easily tip over into disincentives and problems. One area of controversy was the imposition of minimum pay-outs by Foundations, eg 5% of their assets base per year, as in the US. Some thought this was not unreasonable and perfectly workable in practice, if the target could be met over a number of years eg three or five. Proposals of this kind had come because some foundations were sitting on large cash piles. Others thought it was unduly rigid and constraining, and could easily be contrary to the internal rules of Foundations which reflected the wishes of the original founders. It was also pointed out that the right rate for a sustainable foundation had been shown to be 4% not 5%.
One model of the relationship was that philanthropists should innovate and prove concepts, and government should then take them to scale. But it was unclear how often this worked in practice. Governments could easily ruin a good idea by poor implementation. Sometimes it might be business which could provide the scale, particularly as governments generally became weaker and poorer compared to the private sector. Moreover the point at which a concept could be said to be proved was often not clear.
The relationship between governments and philanthropists was also about a lot more than money. Philanthropists could be powerful advocates, and influencing governments was a legitimate objective for them. One issue here was the lack of coordination, and absence of a platform where philanthropists could meet and concert their views, and then put them to governments. There was no acknowledged philanthropic voice. Was there a need for a philanthropic ‘Davos’?
Governments themselves were schizophrenic about the sector, which they found useful, but also too diverse and messy to engage with easily. Some participants argued that governments understood the philanthropic sector poorly, and paid insufficient attention to it, as shown by the number, quality and rotational speed of civil servants who were supposed to specialise in it. The latter tended to avoid taking decisions out of a combination of ignorance and excessive caution.
In the end, philanthropists had to engage with governments, and needed to send a clear and unified message. Governments’ role in creating the right culture could be crucial. Partnership, in the sense of working together, could be useful, as long as care was exercised by the philanthropists to avoid ‘capture’. Philanthropists should engage much more effectively with legislatures too, whose views could be very influential.
Philanthropy and business
Our discussion was mainly about wealthy individuals rather than corporate philanthropy or mass public giving, but we recognised that there were close relationships all round. Most participants argued that many companies were still not taking their wider responsibilities seriously, and were stuck on more or less token CSR. Many shareholders had yet to be persuaded that engagement in broader community issues was not only good for company image but was also important for employee satisfaction, and ultimately good for business itself. Value for shareholder and benefit for the community could be aligned.
Governments and philanthropists could help by asking for more matching funding from the corporate sector, and helping to persuade company heads and shareholders that responsible giving and civic engagement were an integral part of doing business in the modern world. There were also simple things which companies could do which would make a huge difference, such as encouraging payroll-giving, on the basis of opting out rather than opting in, and allowing employees to devote time and effort to volunteering activities. The latter could often be more important than money.
If we were heading for hybrid models for philanthropy, as many thought, that also implied a major change in the way we drew the borders between business and the so-called third sector. New models needed to be devised and tried, to see what worked, and to explore how the idea of investing rather than giving could transform traditional models and ways of thinking. Public-private partnerships between businesses and community organisations could help to maximise the contributions of both.
The role of future technology
Philanthropy might look totally different in twenty years time. The relationship between the citizen and the state was changing fundamentally in the internet age. ‘Idea philanthropy’ could be the wave of the 21st century. The new Facebook millionaires would want to spend their money in very different ways from their predecessors. But assertions that technology would change everything were more frequent than specific examples of what might actually happen. One obvious change was easier giving through the new social media, exemplified by the international response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake, when huge sums were raised through simple text messages. ‘Twestivals’, raising money through Twitter, were a growing phenomenon.
These trends were bound to accelerate in future. They also raised new issues of accountability: small-scale donors could now easily demand to be heard, eg through Twitter campaigns, if they were unhappy about some aspect of financial or foundation management, whatever the formal governance arrangements might be. The recent uproar in the US about the behaviour of the Susan Komen Foundation had been an instructive case in point, where the senior manager had been forced not only to change course but also resign.
This trend had its positive ‘watchdog’ side, but since the social media could destroy more easily than construct, by their very nature, it could also end up being negative in its overall impact on philanthropy. It was also pointed out that if the current assumptions about the ‘permanence’ of eg charitable foundations were shaken through legal or other changes, this could have a profound effect on the willingness of some donors to give.
Meanwhile the new internet technologies also made transparency and data/information sharing much easier. This was not being used as it could and should be, but there were great opportunities. Similarly there were opportunities to transform feedback from recipients of philanthropy, for example to ensure that what was being done really met their needs and wants. New programmes such as Ushida offered the prospect of crowd sourcing of information, in this as in other areas.
Better Giving
Many participants pointed out that there was no guarantee that potential philanthropists would hit upon the right area or technique of giving, especially to start with. The ability to make money did not necessarily mean the ability to spend it or give it away effectively. Philanthropists needed to go on their own journey and learn from mistakes, no doubt, but they could also be trained to improve, like everyone else. For the moment philanthropy remained an essentially amateur game.
There were courses around, and universities and business schools were beginning to take the idea of philanthropy as a discipline more seriously. But many did not take advantage of them. Did we need a new Philanthropic Academy, or a well-recognised MPA? Many philanthropists also ignored the value of professional advice, except on the financial and legal details of whatever they wanted to set up. There was a lack of sophisticated intermediaries between potential donors and good causes, and of effective networks which budding philanthropists could plug into. Creating more market places or exchanges could be extremely helpful. Syndicates should be explored. This was another area where new technology ought to be able to play a greater role. Donors should also be willing to fund core costs or areas of study where nothing would happen otherwise.
This was part of what was termed the creation of a healthier philanthropic ecosystem or infrastructure for the future, in which the different stakeholders could come together more readily and foster partnerships. Part of this was also no doubt strengthening the capacity of recipients, since this could itself increase effectiveness and impact.
Cross-border giving
We were reminded that most financial flows to the so-called developing world were no longer aid, but a mixture of investments and remittances from diaspora communities (though the latter were undirected to any public benefit ends at present). This did not mean that country to country philanthropy was unimportant but it needed to be put in context.
The deeper question was whether cross-border philanthropy was really possible as long as national attitudes and frameworks remained in fact very different. The ideal world would see much greater international cooperation to create common frameworks, so that philanthropists would be able to operate more easily together in their chosen sectors, ignoring borders. But we were a long way from that at the moment. Even an effort to set up some kind of European norms had run into trouble, not least from the UK, for predictable reasons of concerns about national sovereignty.
Recommendations
As the above account shows, participants were full of ideas for the future. The following aims seemed to have the greatest support, as well as the best chance of impact:
A specific effort to create a more positive philanthropic culture, cultivated by effective stories about impact and good role models, and supported by education and the media. Philanthropists had to make this happen themselves;
Systematic expansion of the pool of givers, both wealthy donors and the broad mass of public giving, by starting earlier in life;
A more constructive, but sufficiently distant, relationship with government, based on clear and coherent messages;
More engagement with legislators as well as governments;
Better collaboration and information sharing between philanthropists, philanthropic institutions and across sectors;
Establishment of an authoritative and representative gathering of philanthropists, on Davos or similar lines;
Promoting more, better and better-used training opportunities for philanthropists;
More targeted research and convincing data. Again philanthropists themselves needed to make this happen, and be ready to pay for it if necessary;
Better use of new technology, both to make giving easier, and to help build new models which suit the younger generation’s attitudes and habits;
New partnerships between the giving sector and business, including new hybrid and investment models;
New partnerships between the giving sector and business, including new hybrid and investment models;
Tackling legitimacy and accountability issues head on;
Focussing on getting new ideas to scale, whether through government or the private sector.
Conclusion
While we were reasonably optimistic about the prospects over time for engaging more of the new wealthy in philanthropy, we were reminded that the problems the world was facing were huge and growing, while governments’ capacities to address them were declining. There was therefore a need for well-directed philanthropy on a much larger scale than was currently the case. The need to create the necessary cultural and regulatory changes to make philanthropy easier, more natural and more rewarding was correspondingly urgent; and the case for new modes of philanthropy appealing to the new generation correspondingly compelling.
This Note reflects the Director’s personal impressions of the conference. No participant is in any way committed to its content or expression.
PARTICIPANTS
Chair: Mr Nicholas Ferguson (UK)
Chairman, SVG Capital plc; Deputy Chairman, BSkyB plc; Chairman, Alta Advisers; Chairman, Courtauld Institute of Arts. Formerly: Chairman, Institute for Philanthropy. A Governor and Member of the Finance and General Purposes Committee, The Ditchley Foundation.
AUSTRALIA
Dr Michael Liffman
Director, Asia-Pacific Centre for Philanthropy and Social Investment, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria (2001-); Member, Coordinating Committee, Worldwide Initiatives for Grantmaker Support. Formerly: President, Australian Association of Philanthropy; Member, International Network on Strategic Philanthropy; CEO, Myer Foundation and the Sidney Myer Fund.
AUSTRALIA/UK
Ms Susan Daniels
Executive Director, European Association for Philanthropy and Giving (2010-).
CANADA
Ms Helen McLean
Executive Director, Donner Canadian Foundation, Toronto.
Mrs Hilary Pearson
President and CEO, Philanthropic Foundations Canada, Montreal (2001-); Board Member, Imagine Canada and United Nations Association of Canada. Formerly: Managing Consultant, SECOR; Vice-President of Strategic Development, Royal Bank of Canada.
Mr David Schwartz
Director, Donor Partnerships Division, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa. Formerly: CIBC World Markets, Toronto; Prodem Fondo Financiero Privado, Bolivia.
CANADA/UK
Ms Philippa Charles
Director, Garfield Weston Foundation, London; Coach, Teach First. Formerly: Executive Development Director (Global), Associated British Foods PLC; Specialist in Change and Executive Development, Corporate Banking and Group Centre, Barclays Bank PLC.
FRANCE
Ms Nathalie Sauvanet
Head of Individual Philanthropy, Founding Managing Director of Fondation de l'Orangerie and Philanthropy Advisory, BNP Paribas Wealth Management (2007-). Formerly: Deputy Managing Director, Admical - A Network for French Corporate Philanthropy (2001-07); Coordinator, CEREC-European Committee for Business, Arts and Culture (1998-2001).
GERMANY
Mr Michael Alberg-Seberich
Managing Partner, Active Philanthropy, and Managing Partner, Beyond Philanthropy, Berlin; Founding Member and Board Member, DemokratieAnstiftung eV; Formerly: Board Member, Youth For Understanding; Bertelsmann Foundation: Program Director, 2007 Carl Bertelsmann Prize for "Civic Engagement as an Educational Goal" (2006-07).
Dr Rupert Graf Strachwitz
Director, The Maecenata Institute for Philanthropy and Civil Society, Humboldt University, Berlin (1997-). Formerly: Managing Director, Maecenata Management, Munich (1989-2011); Chair, European Policy Working Group, Europa Nostra (2004-10); Member, German Federal Commission on Civic Action (1999-2002).
Dr Karen Hadem
Senior Expert, Social Sector Office, McKinsey & Company, Düsseldorf (2005-). Formerly: Development Worker, Tanzania and Bolivia.
Professor Dr Georg von Schnurbein
Director, Centre for Philanthropy Studies, University of Basel; Assistant Professor of Foundation Management, University of Basel (2008-); Board Member, European Research Network on Philanthropy (2010-). Formerly: Researcher, University of Fribourg (2001-07); Project Coordinator for Switzerland, Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project (2004-07).
ISRAEL
Ms Sharon Deutsch-Nadir
Head of Corporate Citizenship for Europe, Middle East and Africa, Credit Suisse, London (2010-11); Deputy Director, Commitments, Clinton Global Initiative/Clinton Foundation, New York (2005-09); Legal Department, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem (2001-02).
PALESTINE
Dr Atallah Kuttab
Founder and Chairman, SAANED Development and Philanthropy Advisory (Arab Region), Amman; Founding Member, Arab Human Rights Fund; Founding Member, Arab Foundations Forum; Editorial Board Member, Alliance Magazine; Board Member, Worldwide Initiatives for Grantmaker Support. Formerly: Director General, Welfare Association; Middle East Regional Manager, Save the Children.
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Ms Maria Chertok
Director, Charities Aid Foundation, Russia (1997-); Director (2005-) and Advisory Board Member, Community Foundations Partnership; Trustee, Philanthropy Bridge Foundation (UK); Member, Board of Directors, WINGS. Formerly: Consultant on human rights, legal reform and community development, Ford Foundation, Moscow.
SWITZERLAND/UK
Mr David Hayward Evans
Head of Philanthropy and Values Based Investing, Asia Pacific, UBS Wealth Management, Singapore. Formerly: Manager, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Geneva (2006-11); Corporate Partnerships Manager, UK-India Education and Research Initiative (2005-06) and Think UK public diplomacy campaign, China (2002-03).
UK
Mr Matthew Bishop
US Business Editor, The Economist; Co-Author, "Philanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save the World" and "The Road From Ruin: A New Capitalism for a Big Society". Formerly: Member, Advisors Group to the UN International Year of Microcredit (2005); Chair, World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Philanthropy and Social Innovation.
Mr Matthew Bowcock
Chair, Community Foundation Network, London; Trustee, Beacon Fellowship; Director and Co-Founder, Localgiving.com; Trustee and Vice-Chairman, Surrey Community Foundation (2005-); Founder (2000), Hazelhurst Trust.
Ms Alison Bukhari
Director, Dasra India, London. Formerly: Director, Magic Bus, Mumbai, India; Senior Specialist, British and Anglo-Indian art, Christie's Fine Art Auctioneers.
Ms Cheryl Chapman
Managing Editor, Philanthropy UK, London.
Mr Clive Cutbill
Consultant and Lead, Philanthropy Practice, Withers Worldwide, London; Chair, Philanthropy Committee, STEP England and Wales; Chair, Professional Advisory Council, and Trustee, Community Foundation Network; Member, Philanthropy Adviser's Forum; Member, Standing Committee on Taxation, Charity Law Association; Vice-Chair, The London Community Foundation.
Sir Vernon Ellis
Chair, The British Council (2010-); Member, External Advisory Panel, Price Waterhouse Coopers UK (2010-); Chairman, One Medicare (2009-); Chairman, English National Opera (2006-); Chairman, Martin Randall Travel Ltd (2006-); Chairman then President, Classical Opera Company (1999-). Formerly: Trustee, Royal College of Music (2004-10); Chair, Accenture Foundations and Global Corporate Citizenship Council (2001-09); International Chairman, Accenture (2001-08).
Mr Francis Finlay
Co-Chairman, EastWest Institute, New York, (2009-); Trustee, British Museum, (2005-); Chairman, James Martin 21st Century Foundation (2005-); Formerly: A Governor, London Business School (2003-2011);Chairman and CEO, Clay Finlay Inc (1982-2006). A Governor, Member of the Council of Management and Chairman, Finance and General Purposes Committee, The Ditchley Foundation; A Director, The American Ditchley Foundation.
Sir Nicholas Goodison
Formerly: A Governor of The Ditchley Foundation (1990-2011); Leader and Author, Goodison Review (HM Treasury) (2004); Chairman, Courtauld Institute of Art (1982-2002); Chairman, National Art Collections Fund (now Art Fund) (1986-2002); Deputy Chairman, Lloyds TSB Group (1995-2000); Deputy Chairman, British Steel (1993-99); Director English National Opera (1977-98); President, British Bankers' Association (1991-96); Chairman, TSB Group (1989-1995); Chairman, London Stock Exchange (1976-88).
Miss Sophie Hackford
Head of Development, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford (2009-). Formerly: Adviser on strategic philanthropy and fundraising; Client Development Manager, New Philanthropy Capital.
Mrs Beatrice Hollond
Trustee, Institute for Philanthropy; Chair, Keystone Investment Trust; Trustee, Esmee Fairbairn Foundation; Governor, Bryanston School; Chairman, Investment Committee, and Advisory Fellow, Pembroke College; Chair, Audit Committee, Henderson Smaller Companies Investment Trust; Member, Financial Advisory Group, Salisbury Cathedral. Formerly: Deputy Chairman, Millbank Financial Services.
Mr Thomas Hughes-Hallett
Chief Executive, Marie Curie Cancer Care, London (2000-); Chair, Philanthropy Review (2010-); Member, Kings Fund General Advisory Council; Chairman, End of Life Care Implementation Advisory Board; Review Chair, Palliative Care Funding Review for adults and children in England; Trustee, Esmee Fairbairn Foundation. Formerly: Director, Fleming Asset Management.
Lord Janvrin GCB, GCVO
Deputy Chairman, HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd, London (2008-). Formerly: Private Secretary (1999-2007), Assistant, then Deputy Private Secretary (1990-99), Press Secretary (1987-90) to Her Majesty the Queen; HM Diplomatic Service (1975-87).
Ms Theresa Lloyd
Principal, Theresa Lloyd Associates, The Philanthropy Advisory Service for Families and Institutions (1995-); Board Member, Bath Preservation Trust (2011-); Board Member, The European Association for Philanthropy and Giving (2008-); Formerly: Founder Director, Philanthropy UK (2001-04); UK Director, ActionAid (1990-94); Founder, ActionAid India Corporate Partnership; Founder and Director (1986-90), Corporate Fundraising Division, Save the Children.
Sir David Manning GCMG CVO
Non-Executive Director, BG Group (2008-).
Professor Nick Rawlins
Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Development and External Affairs, University of Oxford (2010-); Professor of Behavioural Neuroscience and Professorial Fellow, Wolfson College; Fellow, Academy of Medical Sciences (2006-). Formerly: Associate Head, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford (2008-10).
Ms Liz Richardson
Research Fellow, Institute for Political and Economic Governance, University of Manchester; Visiting Fellow, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political Science; Director, National Communities Resource Centre.
Dr Gerry Salole
Chief Executive, European Foundation Centre, Brussels (2005-); Social Anthropologist and Development Worker; Chair, TrustAfrica; Board Member, Alliance Publishing Trust, London; Observer, Board of European Venture Philanthropy Association and Network of European Foundations.
Mr Martin Smith
Founder (2007), Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, Oxford University; Chairman and Board Member, Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment (1985-); Board Member/Trustee: Royal Academy of Music (2007-); Ashmolean Museum (2006-), Glyndebourne Arts Trust (2006-), Becket Collection (2000-), International Musicians Seminar (2000-); Wigmore Hall (1999-), Tetbury Music Festival (1998-); Chairman, GP Bullhound Ltd; Founding Partner, Beaumont Partners; various other business boards. Formerly: Deputy Chairman, Science Museum (2000-10); Chairman, English National Opera (2000-05);Deputy Chairman, South Bank Centre (1987-97).
UN/INDIA
Mr Venketachalam Krishnan
Chief of Operations, United Nations Fund for International Partnerships, New York (2010-). Formerly: Executive Officer, Department of Management, United Nations (2000-10); Finance Office, Peacekeeping Financing Division; Senior Officer, Office of the Deputy Secretary-General, United Nations (1998-2000).
USA
Dr Carol Adelman
Director, Center for Global Prosperity, Hudson Institute, Washington, DC; Publisher, Index of Global Philanthropy and Remittances (2005-); Board Member (formerly President), Capital Partners for Education, Washington, DC (1994-). Formerly: Vice Chair, Atlantic Council (1996-2009); Vice Chair, Advisory Committee for Voluntary Foreign Aid, US Agency for International Development (2007-09).
Dr Lucy Bernholz
Managing Director, Arabella Advisors; Visiting Scholar, Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, Stanford University; Founder (1997), Blueprint Research and Design; Board Director, Craigslist Foundation; Fellow, Hybrid Reality Institute, New America Foundation, Synergos Institute and International Network on Strategic Philanthropy.
Mr Stephen Heintz
President, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, New York (2001-); Board Chairman: Independent Sector and Center for Effective Philanthropy. Formerly: Founding President, Demos: A Network for Ideas and Action, USA (1999-2001); Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer, EastWest Institute (1992-99); Commissioner for Economic Development, State of Connecticut (1988-90); Commissioner, Department for Social Welfare, State of Connecticut (1983-88).
Ms Clara Miller
President, The FB Heron Foundation; Board Member: GuideStar, PopTech; Member: Aspen Philanthropy Group; National Advisory Boards: The Bank of America, Financial Accounting Standards Board. Formerly: Founder and CEO, Nonprofit Finance Fund.
Dr Shawn Shieh
Director and Editor, China Development Brief (English); China Consultant, International Center for Not-For-Profit Law and Council on Foundations; Visiting Professor, Beijing Foreign Studies University.
