More to do

I read with interest the articles in your last issue (AP232) about arts funding. As the Chairman of a large UK public company, with annual turnover of £2bn, I was surprised that there was little mention of corporate sources of funding. I think there is more that can be done. All public companies face scrutiny in their wider programmes of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and these now carry specific disclosure requirements in annual reports. The rise of ethical investment funds over the past 20 years has raised the consciousness in the Boardroom of our wider obligations.

A generation ago corporate giving was the privilege of the chairman or chief executive and the money was allocated to whatever they were interested in. With CSR managers and board committees such a personalised approach has, rightly, been assigned to history. I suspect the ‘professionalisation’ of corporate giving has one major downside: when discussion takes place around charitable donations, the arts almost never feature. Specific arts funding becomes part of corporate marketing or, in my case, a personally funded not-for-profit vehicle to promote interest in abstract painting and sculpture, AbstractCritical.

I believe the situation can be changed. It will require a co-ordinated and targeted approach – large organisations move more comfortably together. For instance, a corporate fund for the arts, independently governed, receiving a small portion of corporate giving from a large number of public companies could have some appeal. Specific projects relevant to individual companies, i.e. a local arts festival, could seek additional direct contributions. If the arts are to receive a share of this philanthropic pot they will need to be organised and have the same recognisable ‘brand’ appeal that the largest non-arts charities enjoy.

Now, if only we could find some money to set up that governing body and market the concept to companies…