Buffet and Gates, two bad examples for philanthropy?

“Planning my life would have been like drawing a short straw” is the motto that President of and administrator of the Newman’s Own Foundation, Robert H. Forrester, lives by. This nugget of wisdom comes from the organisations founder and his friend, the actor Paul Newman. Forrester manages Newman’s ethical and economic heritage. He met with VITA magazine during a visit to Dynamo Camp, a summer camp in the Apennine mountains in Italy, dedicated to children with chronic illnesses or diseases.

Why is philanthropy making the news?

What I can say is that in the last 10 years we have witnessed an interest by the younger generation in the world of philanthropy. Most likely they are tired of the last 10 years when the welfare system represented the only possible option. In my opinion, today there is a tendency to give a different name to a phenomenon that has always existed. There is a lot of talk about philanthrocapitalism, CSR and social enterprises. I don’t have any objections but I believe the term philanthropy  (or “the love of humanity” from the Greek word phileo, friend, and anthropos, humanity) is more fitting. It indicates that this type of act is not limited to helping an individual but works to improve humanity’s social condition.

How do you explain the United States supremacy in this field?

A French expert from the nineteenth century, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote in his famous book “Democracy in America,” that Americans “are curious people.” I believe he points out an important American characteristic, essential, I would say, to philanthropy. I’ll give you an example, in America if there is a problem in a community the local citizens find a way to resolve it without waiting for the intervention of institutions. And this explains why America has such a high rate of generosity. This year $300 billion (€215.5 billion) was donated.

What do you think of the Buffet&Gates initiative that invites the world’s richest to donate half of their wealth to charity?

Newspapers have paid a lot of attention to their announcement, because of the impressive dollar figures they are talking about. But in reality this only represents a small part of what we call American philanthropy. I believe that real philanthropy is that which doesn’t need the media’s limelight. It involves those individuals who give without making the headlines. We have to be careful of what is called “sensational philanthropy,” it denies the experience for the benefit of the show.   

Their announcement, however, might have helped bring attention to the world of philanthropy…

They have certainly brought the media’s attention to the subject. But I’m not sure if this is the right kind of attention. The problem is that the message that may be received is that to be a philanthropist you must be a billionaire. And this is not true.

So what does one need to be a philanthropist?

It doesn’t depend on the amount of money given that is for sure. First one must believe that they can make the world a better place, they should then proceed in a sector close to their heart and finally they must know that one can never make any real progress alone.