Why the social impact sector should demand — not ask nicely for — bailouts

By now, we’ve heard from industries and corporations across the world, calling for government support to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19 shutdowns.

The calls for bailouts follow the same argument. When consumer demand drops so precipitously, there’s a risk companies go bankrupt, and cannot be revived when COVID-19 restrictions finally lift. It is simply non-negotiable that airlines need government financial aid. Of course, the cruise line industry needs a bailout, even though they’re registered offshore to avoid paying tax. It’s unthinkable that the hotel industry could go without a $150 billion bailout. Casinos, extractives, entertainment, and retailers have insisted on help. Boeing, the plane manufacturer, demanded $60 billion just for itself, and the coal industry wants relief from paying compensation to miners with lung disease. Companies are quick out of the gate to make their case, and hire lobbyists to press for them.

Let’s look at the language used in these requests for financial aid. They are confident demands, for a start. Not tentative requests or hesitant suggestions. They rarely address the negative repercussions of their demands, like the optics of rescuing companies that could have built reserves but instead spent billions on stock buy-backs. They don’t feel the need to make a case for impact — the case is given. They are large corporations who contribute to economic growth, therefore, they require financial support. That’s the whole case.

We talk about our work’s impact; we don’t talk about ourselves as an industry worthy of support in itself.

Now let’s look at requests for COVID-19 financial support from the not-for-profit sector. The Canadian sector has launched an appeal for $8 billion to support its work during the COVID-19 crisis. The British charitable sector has said it needs £4 billion in bridge funding to survive the crisis. 

The appeals are detailed. They outline the impact on ordinary citizens of the services they would lose at a time of increased demand. They outline the job losses that would occur, and the percentage of charities that would shut their doors permanently. They address head-on potential concerns, for example, noting charities are not allowed to accrue large surpluses to tide them over in crises. 

In formulating these appeals, there was some disquiet in the charitable sector about asking for government aid. After all, charities provide support to people, they don’t ask for it for themselves. We talk about our work’s impact; we don’t talk about ourselves as an industry worthy of support in itself. The idea of charities making a case for themselves was uncomfortable and unfamiliar to many. The charitable sector is not accustomed to asking for government support in this way. Usual advocacy centres around tax regulations for donations, for example. Would asking for help look self-serving? How do we make the case without sounding selfish? 

The non-profit and charitable sector has a stronger, firmer case for support than many industries, and yet most of our asks are framed as appeals to a better nature.

Take requests for COVID-19 support from multilateral organizations like the United Nations. It has appealed for a mere $2 billion total to urgently address the needs of the most vulnerable and at-risk people on the planet. $2 billion — a drop in the ocean. CEPI, the coalition coordinating the search for a COVID-19 vaccine, needs $2 billion to start clinical trials on eight viable candidates. This is a vaccine for a pandemic that has immobilized the planet, caused nearly 100,000 deaths in three months, and likely will not end until we find and deploy said vaccine. It has so far raised less than half of its target.

These are global public goods. They are human lives. They are non-negotiable. In a global crisis, we are only as strong as our weakest health system, or our weakest neighbour. COVID-19 anywhere is a threat to us all, everywhere. The non-profit and charitable sector has a stronger, firmer case for support than many industries, and yet most of our asks are framed as appeals to a better nature. As a charitable sector, we make moral cases for help, but only if governments are feeling generous. We rarely make hard-headed, non-negotiable demands, based on our strategic value as a sector.

So why are non-profits left meekly suggesting, appealing, or grovelling for support? Why are our asks framed around charity, begging for optional crumbs if governments can afford it once industries have taken their dues? The corporate sector’s asks are non-negotiable. They are unapologetic, they are large, and they do not shy away aggressively pursuing them. 

What would it look like for charities to demand large bailouts? To sit secure in the knowledge we are too important to fail, and our work is a given?

What would it look like for charities to demand large bailouts? To sit secure in the knowledge we are too important to fail, and our work is a given? Does that idea make us uncomfortable? If so, we should think carefully about why, and what that says about us. 

Our team is working around the clock to deliver insightful stories, analysis, and commentary on the effects of COVID-19 on the social impact world. If you like our content, please consider becoming a member. Start a 14-day free trial now.

Tell us this made you smarter | Contact us | Report error