Philanthropy poses a number of ethical issues:

Giving effectively

Choosing suitable recipients of philanthropy, and ensuring that the aid is effective, is a difficult ethical problem, first addressed by Aristotle.[1][2]

Marketing practices

Main article: Fundraising

Ethical questions include:[2]: 6–7 

Donor intent

Main article: Donor intent

Many gifts are accompanied by a statement of intent, which may be a formal, legal agreement, or a less formal understanding. To what extent the recipient must respect that intent is an ethical and legal issue, especially as circumstances and social norms change.[citation needed]

Incompatible missions

When a person's activities are incompatible with an institution's mission, associating with them or accepting donations from them may be considered inappropriate or dishonest marketing (cf. greenwashing), a form of conflict of interest.

For example, children's museums generally refuse sponsorship from manufacturers of junk food.[3]

Protests against David Koch's support for climate change denial led to his resignation from the board of the American Museum of Natural History.[3]

Tainted donors

Further information: Reputation laundering

Funds derived from, and donors engaged in, unethical, immoral, or criminal activities pose a problem for the recipient, as accepting a donation or continuing to benefit from it may be interpreted as benefiting from or ignoring the disreputable activity.[4] Such donations have been characterized as "toxic philanthropy".[3]

This is an issue for the donor's behavior both before and after the donation. Institutions may react by returning the money, removing the acknowledgement, or by keeping the money.[5]

The Sackler family has been a major donor to many cultural and educational institutions, and has had many buildings and programs named for it. Their association with the opioid epidemic has caused many activists to urge the recipients to remove the Sackler name from their buildings and programs,[6] and some institutions have announced that they will remove the name or accept no further donations from the family.[7][8] Harvard has said that it will not remove the name from the Arthur M. Sackler Museum because "Dr. Arthur Sackler died before Oxycontin was developed. His family sold their interest in the company before the drug was developed.... he had absolutely no relationship to it".[9]

Similarly, the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was a major donor to many university programs, even after his conviction for sex crimes. After it emerged that the director of the MIT Media Lab, Joi Ito, was aware of Epstein's misdeeds and took steps to solicit donations while hiding their source, Ito resigned.[10][11] MIT and Harvard have both initiated reviews of donations by Epstein.[12][13] The MIT review concluded that:

Since MIT had no policy or processes for handling controversial donors in place at the time, the decision to accept Epstein's post-conviction donations cannot be judged to be a policy violation. But it is clear that the decision was the result of collective and significant errors in judgment that resulted in serious damage to the MIT community.[14]

Quid pro quo

Main article: Quid pro quo

Donors are generally acknowledged publicly for their donations, which benefits their reputation. It has been argued that this should be treated as a business transaction.[15] Many philosophers have argued that donations should be anonymous for this reason.[16] Receiving something of value in return for a donation is also considered both legally and ethically a quid pro quo.[17]

Additional reading

See also


  1. ^ Georgina White, "The Ethics of Philanthropy", The European Legacy 23:1-2:111-126 doi:10.1080/10848770.2017.1400258
  2. ^ a b Patricia Illingworth, Thomas Pogge, eds., Giving Well: The Ethics of Philanthropy, ISBN 0199958580
  3. ^ a b c Elizabeth Merritt, "Toxic Philanthropy", Center for the Future of Museums, December 11, 2019, American Alliance of Museums
  4. ^ Michelle Celarier, "The 10 Most Toxic Philanthropists", Worth, September 24, 2019
  5. ^ Paul Dunn, "Strategic Responses by a Nonprofit when a Donor Becomes Tainted", Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 39:1:102-123 (February 2010) doi:10.1177/0899764008326770
  6. ^ Walters, Joanna (2018-01-22). "'I don't know how they live with themselves' – artist Nan Goldin takes on the billionaire family behind OxyContin". The Guardian. Retrieved 2018-01-22.
  7. ^ Walters, Joanna (22 March 2019). "Tate art galleries will no longer accept donations from the Sackler family". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-03-24 – via
  8. ^ Marshall, Alex (July 17, 2019). "Louvre Removes Sackler Family Name From Its Walls". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
  9. ^ Aidan F. Ryan, Cindy H. Zhang, "The Ethics of Harvard Fundraising", Harvard Crimson May 28, 2019
  10. ^ Ronan Farrow, "How an élite university research center concealed its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein", New Yorker, September 6, 2019
  11. ^ Millward, David (August 22, 2019). "Scientists apologise for accepting money from Jeffrey Epstein as academia engulfed by scandal". The Telegraph. Retrieved August 23, 2019.
  12. ^ "MIT and Jeffrey Epstein"
  13. ^ Lawrence S. Bacow, "A Message to the Community Regarding Jeffrey Epstein", Harvard Office of the President September 12, 2019 Archived January 12, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
  14. ^ Report Concerning Jeffrey Epstein's Interactions with the Massachusetts Institute Of Technology (PDF), p. 6
  15. ^ Monika Greco, "In The Wake Of Sackler, All Should Admit That Naming Rights Are A Business Deal", WGBH News Commentary, December 18, 2019
  16. ^ "Maimonides' Eight Levels of Charity" Chabad
  17. ^ "Substantiating Charitable Contributions", United States Internal Revenue Service, [1]