Can "chugging" create the community we want?

Everyday we make choices that reflect who we are and what we believe is important. Through our actions we identify the type of local community, country and world we want to live in.

• Do you drive to work or walk?

• Do you cook from scratch or use packaged foods or eat out?

• Do you see a medical doctor or a naturopath or both?

• Do you live in the city, in the suburbs or in the country?

• Do you send your children to public or private school?

• Are you active in your community?

• What organizations do you give your time and money to?

• Do you shop online or in bricks and mortar stores?

• Do you use cash, credit or debit cards?

• Do you vote?

• Do you work for a public or private organization, or for yourself?

In my experience, if you dig deep enough, every action we take and every choice we make reflects an underlying principle or belief – even if we are not consciously aware of it.

Elections offer an opportunity to reflect on our principles and beliefs with increased attention. What kind of country do we want to live in and which voting choice will help us achieve that objective? Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau’s speech following the Liberal’s majority government achievement in the wee hours of October 20, 2015 directly addressed the role of elections in defining the type of society we want to live in. He said:

Canadians have spoken, you want a government with a vision and an agenda for this country that is positive and ambitious and hopeful. Well, my friends, I promise you tonight, I will lead that government.

The election is over and only some people got the government they wanted. The Liberals received 39.5% of the popular vote and 54% of the seats. Votes were cast by 68.5% of eligible voters, so this result does not include the views of those that consciously or apathetically abstained. We should also consider that some people who voted for the Liberals chose that option not because they endorsed the party, but because the rejected the alternatives.

What channels are open to Canadians to build their country in a way that is representative of their interests, if the process of electing a government does not achieve this for them?

One important way we shape our communities is through the non-profit and voluntary sector. From religious organizations to amateur sports clubs, cultural organizations to health and wellness institutions, charitable and non-profit organizations create jobs and provide services that are not offered by government. This is a good thing. It gives Canadians agency in deciding which activities they want to invest in to build the kind of society in which they want to live. Governments cannot possibly represent all of our views or support the priorities of every citizen. Just as governments are formed by the “majority”, government policy must be a compromise based on the views promoted by the successful party. Canadians are not a homogenous group, as demonstrated by the regional variances, urban vs. rural perspectives and the diverse cultural practices and beliefs. Involvement with, and support of, non-profit groups is an opportunity to engage different priorities outside the scope of government services.

As of 2014 there are over 85,000 registered charities in Canada (source: Canada Revenue Agency), and even more non-profit groups and associations. Some of these organizations are very large, others are small. The non-profit sector is big business. Imagine Canada, a national non-profit that provides a voice for the non-profit / voluntary sector in Canada, collects data on its impacts. In its 2003 survey, the most recent, the non-profit sector (including universities and hospitals) generated revenues of over $112 billion and employed more than two million people. This is approximately 8% of Canadian GDP, Imagine Canada reports. Some of the funding originates with governments. For the vast majority of smaller organizations, funding is obtained through the sale of products and services, as well as from donations from individuals, foundations and corporations. The non-profit sector, therefore, is an important part of our economy and one that makes a significant impact on the social fabric of Canada.

Given the importance of this sector, we should reflect on who sets the agenda. Do individual citizens decide what organizations to engage with and support, or are we influenced in our choices?

Readers will no doubt have been asked, after completing a transaction at their local supermarket or drugstore, if they would like to make a contribution to a charity. Sometimes the charity is an established community group, other times it is a charity operated by the retailer. On the surface, this practice seems harmless. The small contribution, usually $1 or $2, is in reach for most shoppers. We choose to give because giving makes us feel good, but do we think about what we are supporting when we say "yes"? As consumers we must recognize that there is an editorial process at work. The retailers are choosing which charities, that is which social agenda, to promote to their customers. In the process they are influencing the public beliefs. Customers who participate by donating are agreeing to the company’s vision for the community when they make a contribution. It is a self-affirming cycle because as these activities gain support, it suggests that the public really believes in the importance of the chosen priorities.

Recently I was checking out of my neighbourhood supermarket and was solicited three times in under five minutes. First I was asked to donate to the grocery store’s children’s charity, next I was asked for money by a community group with a table in the store and finally, I was solicited by “street team” fundraisers – young people with clipboards and a mission, found on city streets around Canada. This last practice is referred to as “chugging” in the UK – a charitable mugging.

Another way we are pressured to give small amounts frequently is through activities like “Movember”, “Run for the Cure”, and school fundraising drives. Our friends ask us to support the things that matter to them, which we do, and then we, in turn, are able to ask them to support the causes that matter to us. It becomes a quid pro quo. It happens at much higher price-points too, when executives ask their friends to buy expensive tables at charitable events.

In my opinion these constant requests for small, accessible amounts of money are eroding the public’s commitment to more purposeful, personally directed giving.

Of course, I think that people should give as generously as possible, however, I am concerned that individuals could be more personally thoughtful about the choices they make. It is hard to resist the pressure to respond in these situations. You may know the person behind you in the line-up or see the cashier every week, to cite two examples, and you do not wish to look cheap or uncaring.

It is my belief that this unintentional corporately-curated giving, which can add up to a lot of cash over a year, has other impacts. When we give small amounts without thinking about where the money is going, or if it is something that is truly important to us, we are discouraged from getting more involved. By making these “throw away” contributions, we may be left with the impression that we are already doing enough. We are so busy today, an easy “out”, that requires little thought or effort, and makes you feel good, can be very appealing.

Participation in the voluntary and non-profit sectors is important for businesses too. A corporation’s engagement in this sector contributes to its “Social Licence”. (Social License can be described as the “permission to operate” that businesses receive from the public. It is influenced by the actions of the companies such as employment practices and corporate social responsibility – like charitable giving and community engagement – to name just two factors.) Customers who think the businesses they engage with are good corporate citizens “feel good” about purchasing their products and services.

Just as I believe individuals should be thoughtful and directed in their charitable giving, focused giving is something I also encourage my corporate clients to engage in. I encourage clients to try to align their contributions with their mission or with the beliefs of their employees and customers. Too many businesses spread themselves too thin, making many small contributions to a lot of organizations. In my experience focused, directed giving by companies is more meaningful for employees, customers and the benefitting organization. There is nothing wrong with businesses expecting to receive some value for their investment in the community. This value typically comes in the form of public profile and social license. Smart businesses, find a number of ways to track and measure their investment.

Of course there are multiple benefits for the recipient organization as well. There are many ways for businesses to get involved. Businesses can give cash donations from their own profits, which non-profits need to be sustainable. They can also collect contributions from their employees and customers. The value of these contributions is increased for the recipient because the mission of the charity is shared with a broad constituency. Businesses can also provide other high-value contributions: employee volunteering, public profile, senior level board engagement, in-kind contributions, and more.

We build the kind of communities we want through our actions. Charitable giving (big or small, frequent or infrequent) and volunteering are important acts for individuals and businesses. They reflect our beliefs and they inform our beliefs – directly and indirectly. Individuals and businesses can make their contributions more impactful by focusing their giving and being more intentional – doing less better. It is time to treat our chartible giving like an investment, because it is an investment in our communities.