Pound for Pound Matching: What is the Deal?

If you have ever donated money to charity you will be familiar with the ‘if you raise £1 then we will match it’ scheme. It is a method via which big donors can encourage you to donate to something they feel is important, to kick start a campaign, and raise awareness.

I have never really thought about these matching schemes but in reality it is confusing to say the least. Why would corporate organisations want to match equally the money raised by its employees to a wide range of charities? Well… because it is a nice thing to do obviously!

I am sceptical of this and companies’ policies often back this up. Companies tend to back a certain set of charities because a particular company director has a personal affiliation to one, it has some benefit for the company or a company genuinely feels guilty about the effects of their actions.

For instance, The Shell Foundation was caught in a scandal in 2006 as “An attempt by Shell to portray itself as a model of corporate social responsibility was undermined last night after Whitehall documents showed its charitable arm discussing a key commercial project with a British government minister”.

Shell has been cited in scandals. Do we want to get banks involved in more?

However, I am not discounting the honest work that many corporations do and the ability that these matching schemes have to encourage people to donate. What I am concentrating on is the influence matching has upon our donations. Can we justify the matching schemes ability to take donations away from those organisations that we may ‘value’ more? Money is not the end game; it is how effectively it is used that matters.

If you work at a corporation you should review the charities you are matched on as to whether you feel they are effective. If you do not then perhaps you should call a vote on them? As a corporation in a democratic society you have a right to!

Combining this with a recent TED talk by Michael Metcalfe entitled ‘We need money for aid. So let’s print it’ promises an interesting discussion.

(Insert little bio from TED which summarises it better than I could.)

During the financial crisis, the central banks of the United States, United Kingdom and Japan created $3.7 trillion in order to buy assets and encourage investors to do the same. Michael Metcalfe offers a shocking idea: could these same central banks print money to ensure they stay on track with their goals for global aid? Without risking inflation?

Interested? Watch the video here!

The bank would evidently work as the matcher, would print money to encourage confidence in the aid sector and then support the charities work. Great idea.

Yet, if this is combined with the theory discussed above then this places the banks in a powerful position. They would become the influencers in the business word and the aid sector. Often aid works to reduce the affects that corporations have upon the developing so the power which would be held in the banks mandate would surely negate this. Banks have not proven to be the most reliable in recent years.

Think before you donate!

I want to believe in the good of humanity, but just in case I would recommend not going down the lines Michael suggests.

That is it. But, I would appreciate your thoughts!