Why must underrepresented groups participate in philanthropic governance?

Publicado em 30 de junho de 2025 por mfleury

Article originally published on Exame in 10/11/2024

*By Viviane Elias Moreira and Andrea Hanai

Viviane Elias Moreira: “It is urgent, therefore, that philanthropy approaches diversity with greater commitment and conviction and with less hesitation, thus creating increasingly respectful, fair and welcoming spaces.” (Leandro Fonseca/Exame).

It is estimated that we make approximately 35,000 decisions every day, ranging from simple to complex. Although decision-making is always present in our daily lives, it is not always trivial. Our choices can be decisive for our own lives or affect the future of nations, organizations or the lives of thousands, even millions, of other people.

When we delve into institutions, we encounter this crucial yet often overlooked subject: Governance. The concept encompasses systems, principles, rules, structures and processes that lead people to make more informed, assertive, sustainable, balanced, inclusive and transparent decisions.

Today, we will specifically discuss governance in socio-environmental investment. Reflecting on how choices are made regarding the allocation of resources to specific projects or organizations. The provocation proposed in this text aims to invite everyone to step out of their comfort zone, that routine or privilege that sometimes enforces itself on us.

When it comes to philanthropy, the sector must recognize the importance of diversity and inclusion in its processes, objectives and purposes, viewing it not only as a moral responsibility but as a strategic resource for true social transformation. Many philanthropic initiatives already consider diversity as a criterion for allocating resources, and many civil society organizations have adopted affirmative policies in their hiring processes.

However, the inclusion of people from different backgrounds, races, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, abilities and beliefs in social and workspaces goes beyond representation; it is about creating environments where these diverse voices are actively heard, encouraged and valued. For this to happen, the participation of these groups in governance decision-making processes is fundamental, bringing with them the richness of strategic decisions that consider a plurality of perspectives, conferring legitimacy to actions.

When underrepresented groups gain space and are strategically heard in decisions surrounding philanthropy, there is a redistribution of opportunities and resources which positively impact and align with the modern definition of philanthropy, going far beyond financial donations to social causes, involving a broader and more structured set of actions aimed at systemic and sustainable positive impact.

When philanthropy embraces diversity as an essential value for its realization, the potential for impact is even greater, echoing in other ways, whether by promoting more social justice, stimulating economic development or driving innovation and competitiveness. In Brazil, where social inequalities are deeply rooted in issues of race, gender and geographic location, fostering these practices has exponential transformative power.

Achieving equality in diversity topics is still challenging in operational spaces. The scenario becomes even more critical in deliberative governance bodies. At the current pace, it will take about 20 years to achieve parity between men and women in the composition of deliberative councils, for example, according to the GIFE Census 2022/2023, which surveyed 137 civil society organizations, mostly linked to family and corporate philanthropy. In terms of race, despite advances, the percentage of white people on councils is still 92%. Black individuals make up 7%, Asians 1% and there is only one indigenous person mapped in this space.

It is clear that changes in the governance of already established organizations may require time, which could justify the slow pace at which underrepresented groups are being included in deliberative instances. However, it is concerning that new civil society organizations and new decision-making processes in established organizations are being created without considering diversity and inclusion.

A recent study by IDIS – Institute for the Development of Social Investment, which provides data on 74 endowment funds in Brazil, reveals that we have the presence of black or indigenous people in only 43% of General Assemblies, 36% of Deliberative, Curator or Administrative Councils, and only 11% of Investment Committees. A numerically very low presence, which in none of the instances exceeds 8% of members.

A slightly better scenario is observed when considering gender. Women are present in most Councils and Committees, but still do not occupy half of the seats in these bodies. Finally, another interesting aspect is the fact that 78% of the endowment funds (58 out of the 74 in the survey) were created after 2010.

Philanthropy is one of the most efficient ways to drive systemic changes that are not only capable of reducing social inequality but also of building a more just, equitable and inclusive society, creating a country with truly equal opportunities for all.

If we want to preserve the legitimacy and relevance of our philanthropy and our organized civil society, we need to take diversity and inclusion more seriously, not only in the actions and projects carried out but also in the decision-making process around our strategy and performance.

Therefore, it is urgent that philanthropy approaches diversity with greater commitment and conviction and less hesitation, thus creating increasingly respectful, fair,and welcoming spaces.

Viviane Elias Moreira is a fiscal counselor at IDIS – Institute for the Development of Social Investment and Andrea Hanai is a project manager at IDIS.

Lack of collectiveness: the major ‘knot’ to be untied in (and by) philanthropy

Publicado em 23 de setembro de 2024 por mfleury

Responder

By Daniel Barretti, project manager at IDIS

“What is the difference between living in a world that is a mess and a world that is messy?”. This was how Philip Yun, Head of Global Philanthropy Forum, started the opening session called ‘Philanthropy: untangling the knots of the world’, during the Brazilian Philanthropy Forum 2024.

The idea is that society is not essentially a mess, but rather is living in a planetary mess created by itself. The positive part of this is that the mess, therefore, can be tidied up, and philanthropy can and should have an important contribution in this. For that reason, philanthropic actions should be efficient in comprehending the current challenges and proposing solutions as they arrise.

Amongst the many meanings of the Portuguese polysemic word ‘nós’, one of the most commonly used is to say ‘us’. But the panelist’s speeches pointed out a meaning of the word contrary to this word: the lack of collectivity – maybe the main challenge we must face in contemporary society. Sergio Fausto, General Director of Fundação Fernando Henrique Cardoso, says: “Spaces that should be plural and democratic are far from being spaces that privilege the debate and public interest”.

The ‘knot’ of the absence of collectivity is that which implies a lack of dialogue, a lack of plurality of people, ideals, skills and practices.

To Renata Piazzon, Managing Director of the Arapyaú Institute, one of the main ‘knots’ to be untangled nowadays is the climate agenda. However, it does not stand alone.

The environmental issue is interconnected with an extreme lack of collective sense, where the false dualism of man and nature prevails. According to the panelist, philanthropy must first understand climate issues from an integrated development perspective where, for example, heat waves, drought, and alarming fire outbreaks are not restricted to environmental concerns but also to agriculture, public health, and economy. After all, the interrelation between these phenomena is clear. The scenario of severe drought and fires directly impacts the population’s health, as well as the loss of agricultural crops. The unraveling of this chain reaction also leads to rising food prices, inflationary pressure and the consequent loss of purchasing power and deterioration of the population’s diet.

Watch the entire session

Philanthropy should promote network action, articulating and mobilizing diverse social actors: the connectivity and collectivity as a solution to complex systemic problems.

If one of the main ‘knots’ to untangle is the absence of collectivity in society, this also seems like a challenge philanthropy itself must deal with.

Cida Bento, cofounder of the Center for Studies on Labor Relations and Inequalities, reinforces the importance of collectivity through the establishment of networks, and she goes even further defending a change in the power structure, bringing more diversity and, therefore, plurality of voices and interests to philanthropy. The search for solutions and the decision-making process lacks perspective from the part of the population that has been historically marginalized, the one’s who suffer with social, economic and environmental challenges in the current reality.

“[Collective and plural spaces] enable a more conscious decision-making and, therefore, generate a bigger impact”, completes Sergio Fausto.

A movement known as ‘trust-based philanthropy’ works in this path, advocating that funders should establish their relationships with benefiting partners through trust and collaboration, instead of conformity and control.

Rethinking the future of philanthropy

The educator and philosopher Paulo Freire once said that it was because of his love for the people and the world that he fought for social justice to establish itself before charity. It is not about demeaning charity itself, but rather knowing that by promoting charity as a consequence of a structure of privileges, there is a great risk that it serves as an instrument of maintenance, and even as an alibi for inequality.

Philanthropy differs itself from charity precisely through its strategic nature, capable of better allocating, qualitatively and quantitatively, private capital resources to public and collective causes. The question we must ask ourselves is: has it been effectively strategic? If the major ‘knot’ of the lack of collectivity, emphasized by the speakers, is present both in the current problems of society as well as in the way philanthropic actions have been carried out, this seems to indicate that the philanthropic sector also runs the risk of reproducing social power relations.

May harmony, reciprocity, collectivity and plurality be interlaced with a more powerful philanthropic thinking and acting process able to address current challenges, which are currently governed by almost exclusively private and economic interests.

Maybe it is time for society to rethink the subject of philanthropy (the white men, holder of financial resources and a certain professional prestige). After all, it seems urgent for us to look around and ask ourselves: who has the more to give and who has the more to receive and learn nowadays?

Photos by: André Porto and Caio Graça/IDIS.