While my mind has been swirling around Wall Street these past few days, a few philanthropy bits have caught my attention.

Going to the Dogs- If you recall that a few of Leona Helmsley's millions were left to the care and welfare of dogs, you might appreciate the Hudson Institute's panel discussion (September 5) discussing the implications of her trust, its perpetuity, and the dilemma of estate taxes.  The conversation moves quickly away from the dogs and on to more pressing topics of philanthropy and foundations.  If you are keen on the sector, the panelist names may perk your interest - or quickly dissolve it. 

Tell me More- It always excites me to find new resources emerging in the area of transparency including:  the forth-coming Foundation Review, the first peer-reviewed journal in philanthropy; the UK-based Intelligent Giving, a clever site and charity offering insight on how charities operate; and Acumen Fund's announcement of the  Portfolio Data Management System, hoping to set the standard for financial and social reporting data in development.

Events-The Clinton Global Initiative wrapped up last week with 250 commitments equalling $8 billion.  The Chronicle of Philanthropy offers daily commentary on the week's biggest events.  Two exciting events are on their way in October including the SSIR's Online Giving Marketplace  on how sites such as DonorsChoose, Kiva, and Global Giving are changing philanthropy and Social Capital Markets 08 gathering entrepreneurs, funder, and social-business model enthusiasts on what works and what doesn't.

International Philanthropy-Its a bit of a narrow world, so I’m always keen to find and share stories of what is happening.  Global Fund for Community Foundations passes its one year mark and notes some of its progress in this Alliance article - but of greatest interest are the brief mentions of how other countries conceptualize “community foundations” and what in a countries’ culture and current climate might make these foundations more susceptible to success and sustainability. 

Now I’m back to the rescue of the rescue.

This week's government take over/bail out/acquisition of Fannie and Freddie Mac has prompted some very interesting conversations on all sides of government, business, and the non-profit sector - including how to balance the drive for profit with the desire to promote the social good.  In addition to the questions of how Fannie and Freddie's charitable giving will be affected by government intervention, others are contemplating on how future organizations (and the future Mac's) will be able to achieve this balance.  Politicians, business leaders, and charities are all speculating on how organizations will be able to meet their social goals and continue to maintain financial stability.

A quick round-up ~ both the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have commented on the effect this intervention will have on Fannie and Freddie's social mission.  Even more interesting are the commentaries by Peter Panepento and Sean Stannard-Stockton on how and whether this intervention changes our views on social enterprise and philanthrocapitalism. 

Regardless of where you land, the failure of this giant corporate philanthropist is a wake up for all sectors - and the discussions coming forth are necessary as future organizational structures, missions, and goals are concerns.

Residing in a oil-rich province, my morning reading consists of the daily banter between business tycoons and the environmental conservationists.  Last month, a group of Canadian Sierra Club members bicycled to the tar sands (approximately 1,000 km) to gather water from the oil sands to bring to oil executives in Calgary.  In July, Greenpeace recently staged a protest at the tailing ponds, where 500 ducks were killed in April, to stop the toxic waste from entering the pond.  Beyond these two incidences, oil companies continue to argue the economic benefits of these oil resources and promise that the land will be reclaimed.  As Shell Oil Company promotes its partnership with Earthwatch, Aboriginal tribes watch as their land is desecrated and hope (and push) for proper reclamation of the land.

But there is hope.  Move over reduce, reuse, recycle - renewable sources of energy are the darlings of the current climate change debate. 

We’ve read Jeffrey Sach's arugument for the research and development of new energy technologies in Common Wealth - citing that we can reduce and stabilize greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time sustaining global economic development.   We’ve heard Sarah Palin's nomination speech that a McCain-Palin administration will ”lay more pipelines and build more nuclear plants and create jobs with clean coal and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources.” 

With the issue in the mainstream, the opportunities for debate are rife and the how, where, and when to start are less clear - that's where philanthropy comes in.

The UNEP's report Global Trend in Sustainable Energy Investment 2008 notes that in 2007 $148 billion was invested globally in sustainable energy, a 60% increase over 2006.  In philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation has partnered with the Solar Energy Foundation to provide solar panels to homes in East Africa.  Google.org's initiatives around climate change continue to make headlines with their new investments in geothermal energy technology and cheaper coal.   And the Energy Foundation is rounding up major donors to assist with its pursuits of advancing energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Just as in global health and development, philanthropy will have a unique role to play in the debate around energy and climate change.  Whether it is in encouraging investment of new or underused opportunities, bridging partnerships between private companies and nonprofit organizations, or educating the public on new technologies - philanthropy will fill the gaps that government can not and will put dollars to the theories in which the experts believe.

And it's not a moment too soon - oil is a finite resource and patience is growing thin.

(Disclaimer:  I’m not a climate expert, but Bill Hewitt is - and has more of the science behind renewable energy and climate change.)

Last week the Financial Times published an article about how corporations and non-profits can work together productively. The relationship is probably always going to be an awkward one, especially for NGOs that don't want their corporate partners to make any money off the arrangement. The FT is particularly concerned with the division of intellectual property rights for innovations that come out of development partnerships. They list several models, but admit that this is an area that requires more work.

CSRwire is a site that covers pretty much everything to do with corporate social responsibility. It tends to take a pro-business slant on the issue, but also contains a lot of useful information. Interested in the CSR profile of Coke vs. Pepsi, CSRwire is a good place to start.

They’ve just added a multimedia section that they call Video, Commentary, and Research (VCR). So far it has a few videos and audio files, as well as a lot of information about VCR itself, but should be collecting more. They also put out a press release on VCR.

This nice overview of CSR begins with an illustrative short anecdote that shows how “creative capitalism” has been around for a while.

“Like many people in Guatemala, Dona Blanca grows crops which are exported to companies in North America and Europe. But unlike most of them, she is paid fairly for her work.

That's because Dona grows aloe vera for The Body Shop - a leader in corporate social responsibility. The money she makes allows her to send her daughter to school, one of 200 funded by the UK-based natural beauty products company.”

Then, just to demonstrate the breadth of sources that Google Alerts can turn up, I saw this article in Furniture Style magazine. It quotes research showing that consumers really do prefer to buy from companies that aren't evil. Good to know.

Here's a pro-Gates perspective in the Herald Sun, an Australian morning tabloid owned by News Corp.

A study has shown that there is only a small correlation between corporate social responsibility practices and profitability. Particularly scandalous corporate behavior brings poor profits, though. The study authors interpret (and admit they are being cynical with this) that it pays to be good, but not too good. Put another way, profit should not be the reason for socially responsible activities.