‘They use their voice, and they use their megaphones, but I would not call those men philanthropists,’ she said, adding, ‘[Go] look at their record of actually giving money to society. It’s not big.’ Gates’ argument revolves around a perceived lack of conventional charitable giving by these leaders. While the Gates Foundation has created considerable impact through its systematic philanthropic initiatives, contributions of the business leaders she named (and shamed) extend beyond the confines of donations and charity work.
Their works challenge traditional models by harnessing entrepreneurial creativity and leveraging market forces to bring about large-scale change, whether in technology, sustainability or free speech. Gates uses traditional charity as a benchmark for philanthropy. Impactful businesses demonstrate a different type of giving – one based on creating sustainable, profitable models that address societal issues. Financial and strategic investments made by these entrepreneurs provide long-term, scalable solutions that reframe philanthropy as not only an act of giving but also an act of creating. It’s important to recognise this type of impact, too, within certain contexts.
Microsoft, with its ‘links’ with Gates Foundation, has also been accused of cutthroat tactics and tax avoidance. On his part, while still hedging his bets on China and hitching his pony to a Trump presidency, with their respective ‘associations’ with free speech and liberal values, Musk’s ventures have significantly contributed to society addressing challenges at a scale that philanthropy often cannot.
He is trying to get us off fossil fuels and into (his) EVs, and ‘fighting’ climate change by making solar energy more accessible – yes, while making himself a whole lot of money. Starlink, over which the latest brouhaha at the India Mobile Congress 2024 has erupted regarding spectrum allocation, provides internet access to remote areas and over countries to create a global broadband network.
Dorsey gave us Twitter (now X), and with Block (formerly Square), he’s helped small businesses take payments on their phones. Thiel’s approach to philanthropy is less ‘build a school’ and more ‘break the system and rebuild it better’. The Thiel Fellowship pays youngsters to drop out of school and create the ‘next big thing’. Thanks to Thiel, we’ve got cryptocurrency Ethereum and design app Figma, both born out of people who skipped Economics 101 to change the way we use technology.Melinda Gates may have strong thoughts on billionaire philanthropy. But if she ever took a detour to India’s version of charitable giving, she’d probably faint. In India, charity isn’t really about helping the poor, or saving the world – it’s about tax deductions and creative accounting. Here, it’s not about writing a fat cheque for the greater good, but rather writing one that magically boomerangs right back to your account (after a small commission, of course). Why spend the money on charity when you can just say you did?This is how it works. Charitable societies are required to spend 85% of their receipts on activities to avail tax exemptions. But who’s checking? ‘Charitable’ babas and trusts find loopholes the size of the Taj Mahal. Funds get funnelled into, say, some ‘construction work’. But you’ll probably find a few temporary huts where the money allegedly went. Cheques come in, cash goes out – everyone’s happy, especially the donor who just scored a nice tax break.
The biggest charitable black holes? Educational institutions and hospitals. Land is often allotted to them on condition that they admit a certain percentage of poor and deserving students or patients. But if you’re a poor student or a patient in need of treatment, good luck finding that charity. In reality, it’s a lot of PR without the actual service. The hospital or school is still ‘doing good’, on paper.
Gates’ Foundation is neat, and structured, and grants billions to help global causes. But in the grand contest of giving back, surely, there’s room for other kinds of philanthropy?
So, perhaps the debate isn’t whether the likes of Musk and Thiel are ‘real’ philanthropists or not, but more about redefining what it means to give back. In the world of billionaire philanthropy, there’s room for both traditional grants as well as wild, entrepreneurial creativity. While charity has its merits, impactful businesses drive long-term, scalable change.
Therefore, the issue should not be whether these entrepreneurs are ‘non-philanthropists’, but rather how we can recognise and encourage a broader spectrum of impactful giving, the transformative power of which – in contrast to short-term charity – could resonate strongly with those who see the value in lasting, global change. In this context in India, abolition of ‘angel tax’ was, for instance, a step in the right direction.
Real giving goes a long way. And it can come in many ways.