Mon, 06 Jul 2020

LONDON, UK / ACCESSWIRE / June 25, 2020 / Jozef 'Jos' Opdeweegh, a seasoned C-suite executive with over 20 years of experience developing, leading, and growing public and private global companies reflects on how to find more lasting solutions to aiding those in need:

The face looking at me from the newspaper is perhaps six years old. It's a young boy in a makeshift tent, mud on his cheeks, hands clasped as if in prayer. The caption tells me he's lost his home, and that winter may take his life. I think it's his eyes that move me most, speaking of a horror that no child should bear. My palms feel sticky as I pick up the phone, text 'HELP', and make a donation to the Syrian refugee appeal.

Fundraisers like these have become part of the fabric of our lives - they are in our magazines, on TV, even posters on the subway. So commonplace are the images that we learn to filter them out. In the newspaper I was reading there were similar appeals for cancer research, wildlife conservation, homelessness, and victims of domestic abuse. At times, it seems there's no end to the call on our goodwill.

And that should not be surprising, for the urge to alleviate suffering is surely part of our humanity. Indeed, to have no sympathy for the pain of others is a mark of a psychopath. And yet we cannot credibly respond to every cry for help. In the United States there are estimated to be 1.5 million registered non-profit organizations; in the UK around a third of that number, with a similar proliferation of social ventures across the developed world.

This ‘third sector' as it's sometimes called has become a significant part of our social infrastructure, and in many ways, it's as competitive for our attention as the mainstream economy. We choose our causes and from the natural disorder of what is effectively a ‘market for our hearts', there emerges a growing wealth of charity in the broadest and most generous sense of that term. Or so the theory goes.

The notion of charity as the desire to eliminate suffering is sometimes contrasted to a broader vision of philanthropy and the quest to find lasting solutions for the root causes of our problems. We tend to think of philanthropists as a rich few, often historical figures with a social conscience. In liberal democracies, much of their role is now given over to the State, with non-profits filling the gaps and addressing more immediate and particular needs.

To me, the distinction is somewhat academic. All of us are aware that the problems in Syria or Somalia - or even our neighborhood - are the result of forces that ought to be fixed. But we also know that hungry bellies need feeding and traumatized children will not survive winter in a tent. Those caught in the crosswinds of circumstance are deserving of both our immediate attention and our efforts to make a greater and longer-lasting change.

And mostly, the two approaches go hand in hand. Very few larger charities are focused only on the here and now, and yet understandably, they will seek to leverage our more visceral responses to raise funds and build awareness - just as they will lobby the rich and famous, be they individuals, governments or corporations, for larger donations that offer the promise (and reflected aura) of a legacy difference.

But for many of us, all of this can seem somewhat removed. This is surely why so many smaller organizations still thrive in the face of what's become a quasi-corporate competition for our sympathies. Winston Churchill once famously said that we make a living by what we get - but make a life by what we give. I think it's that truth which lies behind our desire not only to donate cash - which good though that it is, can feel like conscience appeasement - but to volunteer and campaign for causes which, although they may seem peripheral to others, are closest to our hearts.

I recall a colleague complaining to me, not unkindly but in frustration, about the fundraisers at his local school. They were so inefficient, he said; hours spent baking cakes and running raffles, when frankly if everyone who cared has simply donated twenty dollars they'd have raised twice as much in half the time. He was probably right, but of course, he misses the point of the exercise. Just as we get our children involved in community work as much for the lessons it teaches them as the difference they can tangibly make.

Of course, the definition of community is wider now than ever. For some, it remains rooted in their neighborhood, their church, or school. For others, that sense of belonging might come from their workplace, their hobbies, their ethnicity even. This is a good thing, for the diversity of interests leads ultimately to richer lives for us all- and I would argue, a voluntary sector that better reflects our needs and concerns than any interventionist design could hope to do. Which is why, wearing my corporate hat for a moment, we should resist calls for overregulation of the non-profit sector.

Instead, we should encourage involvement and giving of different sorts - awarding tax breaks and stipends to those who volunteer, for example - and promoting new models of contribution that draw on our collective efforts as well as our cash. Throughout my career, I've had the privilege to work with many gifted individuals and have seen the progress that their flair makes possible. It's common for the churches of many different faiths to ask their followers to gift a percentage of their income, but consider the impact if we all of us offered a percentage of our talents. For some that might mean baking cakes - and it's good that they do - but for an academic say, it could be directing a percentage of their research at social issues, or for executives like myself, advising on strategies and governance.

In the US and the UK, non-profits are typically seen as a substitute to State funding, but there are other approaches that we can learn from. I've already mentioned the roles of the churches and faiths which are prominent in many cultures. Across much of mainland Europe, there is often a more social-corporate model, with close cooperation and even contracting between the State and charities. In Scandinavia and the Netherlands, where high taxes and high-quality services are the norm, the emphasis is on volunteering and participation.

The pool of our talent is limitless - and it is here, I believe, where the potential for a modern philanthropy lies. Lasting social solutions are seldom designed from above, rather they evolve through an iterative process of progress and refinement, underpinned by care for the outcome. This asks more of us than the adverts and appeals that surround us, and it requires leaders to step forward and encourage others to do the same. But here's the thing: it pays us back in spades. Short of utopia, there will always be a role for larger organizations, and thank goodness they are there, but to have a wider, more caring society we need to bridge the gap between ourselves and those in need with something more tangible than simply texting 'HELP'.

CONTACT:

Website - https://josopdeweegh.com/
LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jos-jozef-j-opdeweegh-13986b70/
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_D7qf0sQsSzQeDFqAYjgLQ
Twitter - https://twitter.com/jos_opdeweegh

SOURCE: Jozef Opdeweegh



View source version on accesswire.com:
https://www.accesswire.com/595219/Jozef-Opdeweegh-Reflects-on-Bridging-The-Gap-to-Those-in-Need

More Florida News

Access More

Sign up for Florida State News

a daily newsletter full of things to discuss over drinks.and the great thing is that it's on the house!