Before discussing charity and giving, allow me to wish each and all hard-working, loving fathers a Happy Father’s Day!
Private charitable giving, philanthropy, is most important during economic hardship, and many Canadians are experiencing financial hardship. So many suffer from a lack of food and basic shelter. But we cannot rely on governments for much help. They’ve often created scarcity problems, and their help is usually the kind that hurts. Private charity is a better option.
Sometimes, we hear the phrase "giving back" as a reference to charitable giving. That formulation usually refers to businesses donating money, but not always. Charity is, of course, more than giving money to those in need.
The notion of "giving back" seemed ubiquitous when I arrived in Atlantic Canada in 2013. However, I did not like describing a corporate charitable gift as "giving back," but I couldn't say why. As I started hearing the expression more often, just about everywhere, I wondered if "giving back" corresponded to the essence of charitable giving. Intuitively, I didn't think it did.
The word charity in English derives from the Latin "caritas," meaning love—but it is not erotic or romantic love. It is a supernatural form of love and the highest, most selfless form of love.
How does perfect love square with charitable giving? The connection hints that charitable giving is a form of love related to the ideal Form. I am reminded of the scene in Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables (1862), in which the bishop of the town of Digne (Worthy), Monseigneur Bienvenu, displays “caritas” in his charitable treatment of Jean Valjean. The bishop offers Valjean, a thief, his hospitality for a night, and Valjean repays him by stealing a set of silver candle sticks before disappearing.
When Valjean gets stopped and frisked by police, the police realize that a travelling tramp carrying such valuables must have stolen them. He is brought back to the diocesan dwelling, where the bishop corroborates the lie Valjean told to the police and gives Valjean the silver, his life and his freedom in one act of forgiving charity.
And how, then, does corporate “giving back” contrast with charity?
"Giving back" may be a call to being charitable, but is it charity? What does "giving back" imply? While the generosity of those who see themselves as “giving back” shouldn't be minimized, the phrase implies voluntarily returning something previously taken. What would that be?
The objective of businesses is to make a profit. Marxists and radical socialists argue that pursuing profit is inherently greedy and exploitative. They portray businesspeople as extracting wealth from the unsuspecting public and working masses.
Witness Jagmeet Singh, the federal NDP leader and coalition partner to PM Trudeau. Singh speaks about grocery sellers' greed. Grocers are in business, like everyone else, to make money, of course. Yet, the part to which people like Singh are willingly blind is that grocers (like most other businesspeople) perform valuable services. They ensure that fresh food and essentials are available to consumers. They sort the groceries, arrange them, and display them cleanly, conveniently, and hygienically. Imagine if all individuals had periodically to source all food directly from ranchers, farmers, and fishers. The logistics, time, and cost would be untenable for most people, highlighting grocers' indispensable service in modern life.
Businesspeople aim to make money, and in doing so, they provide goods and services that we value. As Adam Smith pointed out in Book I, Chapter II of The Wealth of Nations (1776): “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."
In addition, the same business people employ others, innovate, create efficiencies, and produce solutions that benefit many—often beyond those who directly purchase their goods. Consider those in the transport industry who ensure people reach their destinations, visit friends and family, or go on vacations. Construction workers build our essential infrastructure: roads, schools, hospitals, and homes.
Canada's agricultural sector produced over 85 million tonnes of grains in 2020 alone, feeding millions domestically and abroad. Additionally, in 2021, the construction industry employed over 1.4 million Canadians, building homes, commercial spaces, and critical infrastructure, enhancing the quality of life for many individuals and their families.
What is more, in places where people produce to make money to feed their own families, there tend to be fewer people suffering from hunger in market economies.
Many who see entrepreneurs as taking advantage of people say businesses benefit from public goods like roads and airports, public transport, and well-trained workers in publicly funded institutions. That is true. However, businesses do not receive all those benefits for free. Businesses also contribute by paying taxes that fund public services and infrastructure development.
Additionally, businesses are communities that provide livelihoods to millions. In Canada, small and medium-sized enterprises employ about 88.3% of the private labour force, illustrating how the entrepreneurial spirit fosters job creation and economic stability. Figuratively and tangibly, these enterprises are already giving to the community.
So, why say “give back” instead of simply saying give? Unless giving back means returning excess one took from others in the community, there is no need to say one is “giving back.” One simply gives. The "excess," if excess it is, is profit, and nothing is damning about making a profit.
When entrepreneurs say they are “giving back,” they unwittingly embrace the radical idea that profit is illegitimate. It tips the hat to the Marxist view of the world, and I fail to see the advantage for a corporate person in accepting that idea. It is a self-flagellating notion.
Giving back implies paying or returning what is owed. Repaying a debt is just and commendable, but it is a contractual or ethical obligation, not charity. In the same way, forcing someone to give does not result in charity. Jagmeet Singh recently threatened to force grocers to “donate” excess food to the poor. That’s not what a donation is, and business people who speak of giving back embolden people like Singh.
The concept of "giving back" suggests, at the very least, that businesses borrow from society without explicit permission. At worst, it implies they've stolen and are returning some of their ill-gotten gains.
So, I understand that the political enemies of free enterprise want to impress that companies should “give back” to insinuate that entrepreneurs steal from the public. Still, this expression seems blind or fake coming from corporate lips. Why do entrepreneurs and businesspeople say they “give back”?
Perhaps there is something else. Entrepreneurs may feel guilty about their wealth and wish to convince themselves and others that they are “giving back.” In some cases, it may be a strategic use of language. Not unlike some hydrocarbon companies lathering their wealth on radical environmentalist groups, raising the price of goods that the poor need.
Corporate giving often (not always) functions as a utilitarian transaction. Companies to enhance their image, advertise, penetrate markets, and create an obligation of support within the community. While these actions do benefit the people receiving them, they are not expressions of "caritas"; they are business strategies. Some who use this strategy leverage the annual "giving back" mantra to appear virtuous and charitable, but it may be far from charity.
Either way, giving is not as simple as reducing it to the extremes of absolute selfless love or a transactional corporate strategy. Giving is a complex human action which involves will, intention, and consequences or outcomes.
French Sociologist Marcel Maus’ “Essai sur le don” ("Essay on the Gift," 1924) offers key insights into the nature of gift-giving and some of its implications. The three main points from his essay are:
1. The Obligation to Give, Receive, and Repay: Mauss identifies these three fundamental obligations that underpin gift-giving in many cultures: the obligation to give, the obligation to receive, and the obligation to repay. These obligations create a cycle of exchange that fosters social bonds and mutual dependence. The act of giving establishes a relationship between the giver and the receiver. Accepting the gift acknowledges this relationship, and repaying the gift maintains and strengthens the social bond.
2. The Concept of 'Hau' and the Spirit of the Gift: Mauss introduces the concept of 'hau,' a term from Maori culture (New Zealand), which he uses to explain that gifts are imbued with the giver's spirit. This spirit, or essence, creates a bond between the giver and the recipient, making the gift more than just a material object. The idea of 'hau' suggests that gifts carry with them a part of the giver's identity and must eventually be reciprocated to maintain social harmony and balance.
3. The Role of Gift Exchange in Social Cohesion: Mauss argues that gift exchange plays a crucial role in the cohesion and structure of societies. Through giving and receiving gifts, individuals and groups establish networks of alliances, obligations, and mutual support. This exchange system creates interdependence among community members, fostering cooperation and social solidarity.
Corporate giving can be examined through the lens of Mauss' framework, primarily fitting into the " Obligation to Give, Receive, and Repay" category as part of a corporate strategy. Here’s how it aligns:
1. The Obligation to Give: Corporations often give as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. This may be seen as fulfilling a perceived obligation to contribute positively to the communities in which they operate, thereby establishing goodwill and enhancing their public image.
2. The Obligation to Receive: When corporations give, they often expect the recipients (communities, customers, or employees) to acknowledge and appreciate their contributions. This can manifest as increased brand loyalty, a better corporate reputation, or enhanced employee morale.
3. The Obligation to Repay: Recipients of corporate gifts, such as donations or sponsorships, may feel obligated to reciprocate. This feeling can take various forms, including supporting the corporation through purchases, advocacy, or continued partnerships.
Therefore, corporate giving, viewed through a Maussian lens, is a philanthropic act and a strategic tool for building and maintaining social and economic relationships.
Mauss's analysis primarily focuses on direct and explicit forms of reciprocity.
However, his broader concepts of social bonds, moral obligations, and cultural norms can still apply to charitable gifts without direct reciprocation. The benefits of such giving may be more diffuse and indirect but are still integral to the social structures Mauss describes.
Finally, using the Maori concept of “hau,” Mauss's analysis highlights how economic transactions also have a spiritual dimension and are deeply embedded in social and moral contexts. This challenges the notion of purely rational, self-interested economic behaviour; it challenges the passage in Adam Smith above.
Recently, I saw a social media post from someone I used to know in Halifax. She illustrates in part Mauss’s point about the spiritual nature of gifting, even when tethered to the transactional. The person in question worked for a large, chartered bank and was responsible for corporate donations and community outreach. The post was about her retirement. I met this person a few times, and from day one, she reminded me of the meaning of charity in its many layers.
Essentially, this woman was the face and voice of a large, impersonal corporation. Yet, she was so good at her job fostering relationships and helping people that she almost made you feel the bank she worked for was a caring and warm entity. She was so good at being human that she humanized the cold, impersonal, and calculating money-making enterprise.
This (now former) banker in Halifax taught me that her employer had put the right person in the correct position, whether by accident or design. The money she distributed and the relationships she built were undoubtedly part of a corporate strategy she was supposed to unfold as part of her job. However, how she went about it seemed drenched in pure human charity. So, even cold corporate strategic giving can sometimes display a charitable heart and move people.
All these musings have made me realize that using the phrase “giving back” to refer to charitable giving inadvertently suppresses the true nature of charity, reducing it to an obligatory act of supposed restitution rather than an expression of love for others. It buries the genuine intent behind charity under a pile of recrimination as well as guilt and self-flagellation.
Virtuous businesspeople don’t need to worry about “giving back”; they haven't taken anything. They’ve provided solutions, goods and services and solved problems. They're not lecherous operations that must relieve their guilt.
In its truest sense, charity is about filling a need out of compassion, not because of some perceived debt. Intention matters more in charity than the words used to describe it. The mischaracterization of businesses as inherently exploitative ignores the positive contributions of free enterprise. Unless proven otherwise, entrepreneurs should be seen as benefactors who drive material progress, not as villains who must "give back" something they never wrongfully took in the first place.
Regardless of where one might sit on the tension between charity and the corporate giving strategy, contemporary Marxists and progressives are wrong about businesspeople. Their sweeping generalization condemning all profit and the desire to create wealth as greed is wrong. They’re also wrong about Marx, who understood that human work has a redeeming, spiritual dimension.