Harnessing the capital’s giving

Rocket Science’s review for the Greater London Authority argues that the Mayoral priority of enabling “good growth” provides a modern narrative for harnessing corporate philanthropy  

The GLA commissioned Rocket Science to undertake a review of civic philanthropy against a backdrop of extensive reflection about the future of civil society in the capital.[1]  At a time of political uncertainty around Brexit, the shrinking role of the state in people’s lives and increasingly complex social needs compounded by widening inequality of wealth, we detected high expectations of the Mayor of one of the richest cities in the world to take more of a lead.  The Review found less consensus around either the specific types of intervention or initiative the Mayor might take, or whether the concept of philanthropy, which is an anachronism to some, befits a modern and dynamic global city.

With the private sector increasingly seen as a key component of a civil society, the Review argues that the Mayor’s “Good Growth” agenda provides a modern narrative which will enable the GLA to elicit more sustained investment and “social value” than occasional contributions from businesses’ Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programmes. Reflecting the Mayoralty’s efforts to widen civic participation and community engagement, the Review shows how the GLA is already securing at least as much value from employers’ giving of time and expertise as money. However, it also found teams across the Authority working independently without clear strategic direction on how to engage corporate philanthropy, adopting largely opportunistic approaches to partner business.

The GLA’s eliciting social value from companies, is symptomatic of a growing trend particularly among some of the larger businesses we consulted of “moving beyond CSR” and the increasingly discredited notion of a tacit social contract in which businesses give something back to society in return for a “licence to operate.”  We detected signs of a different model of doing good in London’s private sector, one where businesses create social value by investing in the same activities required to generate profit – procurement; recruitment and reward; skills; research, development and social innovation – often by entering long-term partnerships with charities and civil society organisations.[2]

The GLA’s tapping into this whole-company approach is one corollary of the Mayor’s “Good Growth” agenda and is being underpinned by the introduction of new instruments like the Good Work Standard, as well as the Social Value Act.  Recognising the potential of business is also a recurring theme of the government’s new Civil Society Strategy which seeks to back “purpose-led” businesses committed to social or environmental objectives alongside making profit.

Such prominence given to business in debates about the future of civil society would not have been entertained even just a few years ago.  Changed perceptions of the role and potential of the private sector – from both inside and outside companies – is indicative of how boundaries between the private, pubic and voluntary sectors have become increasingly porous, and how so many of today’s social needs and challenges demand not just partnership working, but cross-sector solutions.[3] The Review identified scope for the GLA significantly to amplify this message, in effect re-purposing corporate giving for the 21st century and doing more to harness the social value generated by London’s businesses.[4]  Currently, however, connections and synergies between different programmes and projects funded by the GLA are being missed.  Partly this is a consequence of a new administration taking time to develop its strategic priorities, articulating its vision for civil society in the capital and refocusing inherited programmes, like Team London, on the themes of social integration, community engagement and social mobility.

Businesses consulted for the Review spoke of their frustration in having multiple contact points with the GLA and its lacking a coordinated, joined-up approach on corporate engagement.  As the definition of a modern civil society shifts and broadens to include business, the distinction between the GLA’s commercial partnerships (for which there is a dedicated team within the GLA) and business offers of a philanthropic nature will only become further blurred. One of the Review’s overarching recommendations is to establish a single point of contact at City Hall to bring far greater visibility and coordination to the Authority’s engagement with all sources of civic philanthropy, particularly those aligned with Mayoral priorities.

The recommendation that City Hall establishes a single point of contact for engagement with civic philanthropists is one of a series of actions and recommendations. 

Harnessing the Capital’s Giving – what is the role of the Mayor and Greater London Authority in enabling civic philanthropy with all our recommendations can be downloaded here – Rocket Science – GLA Philanthropy Review.

For further information on the Review’s findings, please contact [email protected]

[1] For the most recent contribution to this public debate see the Cabinet Office’s Civil Society Strategy, Building a Future that Works for Everyone, August 2018; Also Civil Society Futures is an ongoing national conversation about how English civil society can flourish in a fast changing world. Through a wide range of different media, Civil Society Futures has engaged those involved in all forms of civic action, including business.

[2] The future of doing good in the UK, Sonia Sodah for the Big Lottery Fund, 2017; See also chapter 4 of the Cabinet Office’s Civil Society Strategy, Building a Future that Works for Everyone, August 2018 “; Rocket Science Focus Group with large businesses, 30th April 2018.

[3] Cabinet Office’s Civil Society Strategy, Building a Future that Works for Everyone, August 2018; https://civilsocietyfutures.org/playback-business-perspective-civil-society/;.

[4] A recent study for the City of London Corporation helpfully traces the evolution and increasing partnership approach to corporate philanthropy, though admits that relatively few companies have yet progressed from “being good to great” – Corporate Community Investment – Four Routes to Impact, City of London Corporation and Corporate Citizenship, 2018.

Rocket Science publishes review of philanthropy for the Greater London Authority

Earlier this year Rocket Science were commissioned by the Greater London Authority to produce a Review of Philanthropy in London.

As you may know, last week Centre for London published More, Better, Together: A Strategic Review of Giving in London; this follows earlier calls for action, from the London Fairness Commission (2016) and Charities Aid Foundation (2017), for the Mayor to use his office to harness civic philanthropy and similar private initiative for public good.

Rocket Science’s Review of the Greater London Authority’s role in supporting philanthropy is intended to help shape and inform the Mayor and the GLA’s response to these calls. You can download a copy of the Review, Harnessing the capital’s giving: What is the role of the Mayor and Greater London Authority in enabling civic philanthropy?

I hope the proposals we have suggested in the Review will help improve the effectiveness of private, particularly business giving in working alongside statutory and charitable resources to tackle London’s rising social needs.   A GLA response to the research is expected in October 2018.

As always, we would be very pleased to hear any feedback on the Review, and ideas or offers of help to implement these recommendations.

The GLA commissioned Rocket Science to undertake independent research into the role the Mayor and GLA could play in enabling philanthropy in London. We welcome Rocket Science’s findings and recommendations and along with the Centre for London’s recent ‘More, better, together’ philanthropy report. The GLA is considering its role and will respond to both reviews in October.

Insight from our Rocket Scientists – Working with Young People

Insight from our Rocket Scientists – Working with Young People

This week we ask some of our Rocket Scientists What is important for services that support young people?

Over the last year, we have evaluated a range of programmes supporting young people. Our clients include the Wise Group, Venture Trust, Scottish Waterways Trust, Princes Trust, and Centrepoint. This work has given us the opportunity to refresh our insights into what works when helping young people to improve their education, employability and financial resilience.

Using this insight we have asked our Rocket Scientists to share lessons they have learned about what works for young people.

Dina Papamichael, Assistant Consultant

For me, it is crucial to understand the intersecting issues which young people can face. For young people, issues around health and employment are so closely linked with self-confidence, social inclusion, substance misuse, homelessness and mental health. The most successful interventions enable a young person to overcome multiple challenges on the road to the programme’s primary objective. A programme which helps young people gain a qualification while developing a social network can have the impact of boosting self-confidence, developing work-related skills and increasing the level of stability in a young person’s life, while health services that focus on the social drivers of the sexual and mental health of its young people can obtain better and more enduring health outcomes.

Richard Scothorne, Director

The transition to work is a very tough one for many young people. Some have never really succeeded at anything at school and have often lacked the stable support of parents or other carers.  The most effective programmes we have worked with have provided different kinds of support – in other words, support that young people can chose from in terms of the quality of the relationship and their different needs from time to time.  These sources include trainers, mentors and personal coaches – someone who can provide the young person with a fixed point in a shifting world – and who will listen to them and stay with them through their journey.  In addition, working on shared tasks in small, well-managed groups – often in quite demanding conditions – can provide invaluable peer support, show people they are still appreciated even when they may be struggling, and help to build a young person’s confidence in dealing with others.

Natalie Dewison, Senior Consultant

Traditionally, the effectiveness of employability services has been assessed by looking at the number of people moving on to ‘positive destinations’ (education, employment, training or volunteering). For employability projects supporting young people facing multiple barriers to work, particularly those that only run over the course of a few weeks, this approach fails to capture the full impact of support provision.

We have found that often the most valuable outcomes are increasingly recognisable over time. Improvements in a young person’s confidence and outlook for example, which make them more resilient to knock backs and motivated by new long-term goals and ambitions. These things have the potential to greatly improve future job prospects. We are currently supporting three organisations delivering employability projects to evidence the sustainability of these outcomes. This means developing methods of longer term data collection that are simple, effective and enjoyable for the young people involved.


Max Lohnert, Assistant Consultant

Vulnerable young people often come from unstable backgrounds and face a range of intersecting barriers to entering employment. Considering this, our experience shows that there is no “quick fix” and that vulnerable young people benefit most from sustained engagement with employability programmes. For example, young people often benefit immensely from the trusted relationships with trainers and mentors and from the peer network they establish – and such relationships take time to build. However, since funding arrangements often require organisations to prioritise the number of young people being helped over the length of time they can engage with a single person, organisations have found other means to engage young people for longer periods of time: ranging from trainers or mentors staying in touch with a young person informally after the official completion of the programme, to building linkages and strong referral networks with other organisations along the employability pipeline.

Clare Hammond, Associate Director

The job market is becoming more complex and more competitive. Teaching young people to navigate this complexity is so important. This includes helping them look beyond the well-known and more obvious opportunities. How many jobs did you know existed when you were in high school? Doctor, teacher, engineer, nurse and banker? Probably. How about business analyst, GP practice managers, food safety consultant, project manager? Probably not.

The role that employers can play in helping young people understand the lay of the land is well evidenced. However, engagement between schools and employers often focuses around larger private sector employers. These large businesses make up a small part of employment in the UK. Most people will work for small or medium sized private firms, or the public sector. Where schools partner with small and medium sized businesses and the public sector young people are able to have a fuller understanding of the labour market.

Eleanor Sanders White, Consultant

There are many assumptions out there about young people which can interfere with our ability to reach and support them. Sometimes, the only thing in common in a group of young people is their age – we need to be careful about treating them as a homogenous group. A lack of confidence or fear of failure can often be misinterpreted as apathy. While some young people want to engage online, others need to develop a trusting relationship to engage. Many young people are technologically savvy, but some won’t have the digital skills required to engage online. While some young people will need a tailored and very supportive experience, others will interpret this as patronising. The way through this? Some of the most successful examples we have seen go straight to the source and ask the young people, others have shown a huge flexibility in how they engage with the young person to tailor for the individual walking through the door.


For more information on our work with young people get in touch with Clare Hammond, one of our Associate Directors [email protected] or 0131 226 4949

London and philanthropy – an opportunity for the Mayor of London?

London and philanthropy – an opportunity for the Mayor of London?

Heather McLoughlin looks at what Rocket Science is doing to help the Mayor of London and the GLA understand the importance of civic philanthropy to London. Read here to find out what you can do to get involved.
London is a city of contradictions. Home to more billionaires than any other city in the world (the most recent Sunday Times Rich List puts the current number at 86), the capital’s increasing polarisation of wealth is potentially the greatest risk to its social integration and continued economic success. For every £1 of wealth owned by the bottom 10% of London households, the top 10% owns £172. In the context of this increasing disparity, and against a backdrop of the biggest retraction of state spending since World War Two, it is perhaps unsurprising that there is growing interest in a city-wide effort to harness greater philanthropic giving as an agent of enriching civic society. Today, philanthropy encompasses far more than the donating of money or its transfer from rich to poor. It covers a wide range of motivations from purely altruistic charitable giving to the increasingly sophisticated social investment.

This brings directly into question the current and potential role of the Mayor and the GLA. At present the Mayor and the GLA’s strategic vision and objectives on philanthropy are not clear and there is limited understanding of the potential of philanthropy to contribute to London’s civic renewal and social integration.

Review of the GLA’s role in supporting philanthropy – what are we hoping to achieve?

The Mayor of London has commissioned Rocket Science to conduct a review of philanthropy in London to identify whether there is a role for the Mayor and the GLA to increase giving in the capital and to enhance the way it could complement investment in current and future priorities. The focus of the review is on the giving of money and resources from both companies and individuals which can build on existing infrastructure and provision already offered by the Mayor and the GLA. We will be presenting the Mayor and the GLA with highly practical and achievable actions which it could take to make a measurable impact on giving in London.

How can you get involved?

It is important that as many partners and stakeholders as possible feel able to feed into this review. We are interested in hearing from those who work in the philanthropy sector; from charities and independent funders, to individual and corporate citizens. There are various ways you can get involved

1. We have created a quick 5-minute survey which you can take here.

2. During April, we are also running six focus groups to engage with different stakeholders including large companies; SMEs; individual givers, independent funders, place-based initiatives and social investment initiatives. If you would like to attend a focus group, you can find more information here.

This is an important opportunity to have your say on what the Mayor and the GLA can do to support, nurture and grow philanthropy in London and in turn support the capital’s civil society.


If you have any questions on the review, the accompanying survey materials, please contact:  [email protected]

Heather is a Consultant at Rocket Science based in our London office.  You can check out her profile here.

What makes a charity strong? (Hint: it’s not the computers…)

What makes a charity strong? (Hint: it’s not the computers…)

Rocket Science has helped many charities understand their strengths and weaknesses through our Organisational Strengths Review service.  James Turner highlights what we have learned about their needs.

What makes a charity strong? Is it the people? The ethos? The work that they do? Just possibly the resources that they have?

Over the past two years, we have been finding out by surveying several hundred staff, trustees and volunteers across 15 different charities that have received Building Capabilities funding from the Big Lottery Fund.

First of all, just a word about Building Capabilities funding: it’s a great idea! The Lottery has long been criticised for solely funding project costs: at the end of the project, the charity is then back to square one. Possibly square minus one, because the group will have grown and employed new people who now won’t have any funding. Building Capabilities funding, however, is not project related – they are awards of up to £15,000 build the skills and abilities of the whole organisation.

The first step of a Building Capabilities award is to carry out an ‘organisational strengths review’ to identify areas to focus on with the rest of the funding. And, as I say above, Rocket Science has now carried out reviews with 15 charities. Of course, the word ‘charity’ is just as broad as the word ‘business’: the challenges of running Oxfam rather than a small local charity are as different as, say, running Sainsbury’s rather than a corner shop. We have typically worked with charities at the ‘Small to Medium Enterprise’ end of the spectrum: staff in the ones to tens, rather than hundreds; turnover in the £100,000s rather than millions.

A major part of our strength review is a 32 question survey asking about everything from governance to leadership to project management (try it out here for free). Collecting the responses together from all the surveys we’ve done, there are some clear trends emerging:

It’s about the people…

We send the survey to staff, trustees and volunteers at the charities we work with and by some distance the statement they agree with most strongly is:


“Our staff and volunteers have the skills and experience to meet the organisation’s objectives and goals”

One of the points coming through is the breadth of skills that charity staff typically have. Expertise often goes far beyond people’s job descriptions: project officers are often marketing experts; finance managers know the theory of evidencing impact.

It’s about the purpose…

The other major strength of charities is that people strongly relate to the mission and purpose of the organisation. And they feel their groups have clear, shared values which support their purpose. That’s the great thing about the charity sector: people want to come to work on a Monday morning because they believe in the purpose of what they are doing.

It’s not about the computers…

At the other end of the scale, across the 15 groups, the statement that people most often disagreed with was:

“Our computers, technology and software fully meet our needs and the needs of the people who work for us”

Sometimes, ‘disagree’ is far too mild a word. Comments such as, “Tech and systems are appalling! The support we receive from our IT provider is terrible…” are surprisingly frequent.

To conclude, BLF’s Building Capabilities funding is a great way of supporting charities beyond project funding. Another beyond-project-funding idea for BLF or other funders would be an ‘IT upgrade and support’ funding programme. And if you are reading this and your business is providing reasonably priced and responsive IT support, then, believe me, wherever you are based, there will be local charities looking for your help!


James is an Associate Director at Rocket Science based in our North East office.  You can check out his profile here.

2017 Rich List . . . some challenges and opportunities for London

2017 Rich List . . . some challenges and opportunities for London

John Griffiths reflects on the opportunities for London by rethinking philanthropy in the capital.

The Sunday Times’ publication of the Rich List 2017 shows that the rich are getting richer. The wealthiest 1000 individuals, who enjoy a combined total wealth of £685 billion, saw this increase by 14%, or £82.5 billion, in the last year.[1]

Much of the reaction to the List has focused on how it shows the UK is becoming more unequal. Whilst the combined wealth of the richest top 500 (£580bn) is more than the £576bn of the top 1000 last year, the mega-rich now have more wealth than the poorest 40% of all households in the country. According to research by the Equality Trust, their increase in wealth last year (equivalent to £226m per day) would pay the grocery bills for all food bank users nationwide for 56 years, or for adult social care in England for the next four.[2]

The understandable media interest in who features on the latest Rich List overshadows other intriguing aspects to the annual compilation. In particular, where this vast wealth lies and, at a time of swingeing cuts to public spending, what some of the rich choose to do with their money. The List’s information on the location of the rich, and their increasing inclination to give their wealth away (£3.2bn in 2017; up 20% on 2016), represents a fascinating challenge for London.

London is home to more billionaires than any other city in the world. Of the 134 billionaires in Britain, 86 (64%) are based in the capital. New York, in second place, has 74; the highest other ranking European capital is Paris with 33. Yet London’s increasing polarisation of wealth is potentially the greatest risk to its economic success.

London is a city of contradictions. The capital contains the highest proportion (15%) of people in families with incomes in the bottom tenth nationally and the second highest proportion (15%) of people in the top tenth, after the South East.[3] The London Fairness Commission reported last year that for every £1 of wealth owned by the bottom 10% of London households, the top 10% owns £172. In short, London is again ‘becoming a city of great divides.’[4]

“Time for a Peabody moment?”

This apparent “re-Victorianization of London” has put the names of the great nineteenth century individual and corporate philanthropists back in the spotlight. Their altruism may have been driven as much by the perceived threat to the social fabric from the massed urban poor, as a sense of unfairness. Yet, in its call to arms (“Time for a ‘Peabody’ moment?”), the London Fairness Commission heralded “a new philanthropic age [believing] that the time is ripe for London’s wealthiest residents and businesses to come together in an exemplary social philanthropic effort.”[5]

Halting the apparent slide back to Victorian levels of inequality should be a strong argument for individual and corporate philanthropists to engage in shaping an economy which can both deliver “inclusive growth” and sustain a healthy civil society.[6] However, the work to date on The Way Ahead, a new vision of support for civil society in London has struggled to include business. Defining civil society in a way that highlights the distinctions between the different sectors, The Way Ahead is too last century for our increasingly common purpose. “Civil society is where people take action to improve their own lives or the lives of others and act where government or the private sector don’t.” (p6) It will remain difficult to motivate business if we do not acknowledge that an enabling state and an enlightened private sector are as much a part of civil society as voluntary and community organisations, or informal associations.

Responsible businesses can and do take action to improve the lives of others.[7] However, as with individual philanthropy, corporate giving (of money, time or resources) will always remain an unreliable substitute for state spending for reasons which academics label as “philanthropic insufficiency” and “philanthropic particularism.”[8] “Philanthropic insufficiency” is the realisation that charitable giving will never replace the redistributive role of the state because it is unable to meet the scale of need. London local government receives approximately £22 billion of funding to spend on services.[9] This is almost four times greater than the total cash giving by private sources in London (£5.6 billion). “Philanthropic particularism” is the recognition that donors choose which causes to invest in, responding to needs which they can relate to and not on the basis of objective evidence.[10] This can give philanthropic activities their strength, but also means that they cannot ensure consistency and equality.

And yet individual and corporate philanthropy has a far longer history than public spending in tackling the capital’s social needs. This is not to underplay the influence of the state, but rather to put its recent shrinking in historical context.[11] Philanthropy will never be able to replace state-funded provision. However, it does have the transformative potential to mitigate public sector cuts by meeting needs that lie outside the responsibility of government, as well as to supplement existing but diminishing state provision. Identifying where this can and should happen in London is the key challenge for London’s stakeholders engaged in The Way Ahead.

The exact level or proportion of giving in London is not known. Cash giving in the capital is estimated at £5.6 billion a year from all private sources, accounting for 29% of all UK giving. This is a significantly greater proportion than London’s contribution to UK GDP (22%).[12] In terms of volunteering, a recent report by City Philanthropy[13]found that 39% of London employees volunteer on an ad hoc and/or regular basis.

Whilst the UK in general, and London in particular, are generous in terms of the amount of money, time and insight given to charitable causes, there is a strong perception that London and Londoners have the potential to scale up their philanthropic activities in the capital. Businesses in London would like to be better integrated within their wider community and have greater social impact. Companies told the London Fairness Commission that they would like to scale up their successful philanthropic initiatives so as to reach a greater proportion of London’s population.[14]

The harder challenge of making philanthropy more effective is linked to one of the inherent weaknesses in private giving; the difficulty of influencing such activity so that it can be coordinated and directed at meeting the most pressing needs of Londoners. This is likely to be contentious on at least two counts. Firstly, reaching a workable consensus on what the priority needs for London are and, secondly, agreeing on the most appropriate vehicle to coordinate and (re)distribute philanthropy alongside public, trust and foundation funds. Opportunities do exist, however, to shape this agenda at a number of levels which are both place and theme-based. A few of these are summarised here as “Give More; “Give Local” and “Give Together.”

(1)  Give More

The Mayor of London, potentially working with the incumbent Lord Mayor and the City of London, can make greater use of the Bully Pulpit to challenge London’s business community to co-invest in future strategic priorities for a civil society. London is home to the corporate HQs of many of the FTSE500. In 2014, the top 500 companies in the UK spent £3.25bn on CSR-related activity. This sounds impressive. It actually represents just 0.026% of profit and well below the 0.5% benchmark which only very few corporate citizens manage to reach.[15] London’s civic leaders need to challenge business to give more (following the example of Mayors Bloomberg and De Blasio in New York City):

  • Harnessing CSR – the old, paternalistic models of top-down CSR (ie the board “adopting a charity” for its staff to fundraise for – and appropriating the credit) are changing. Employees, particularly millennials forging careers in the City, want to know they are working for corporates which do good as well as make money. This is becoming a powerful driver and top companies now have to compete for the best recruits on the basis of their social responsibility. A good example of an initiative which has tapped into this zeitgeist is BeyondMe; there are new models out there which need promoting and scaling up as they offer more sustained engagement of corporate resources to support civil society organisations and address social needs.


Awards and recognition schemes – there are quite a few awards already – the Lord Mayor’s Dragon Awards, for example, have now been going for 30 years. In Rocket Science’s recent review for the City Bridge Trust of the City of London’s initiatives to promote philanthropy, we argued that opportunities are being missed for a more coordinated and joined up approach between Mansion House and City Hall to champion and encourage corporate giving and corporate community engagement in the capital, potentially linking such action to the Mayor of London’s proposed “Business Compact”.

  • Exploiting mayoral powers of convening – the philanthropy review for City Bridge Trust highlighted the soft power of both the Mayor and the Lord Mayor and how this can be used to corral and persuade businesses to do more for London. The Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City has been a cornerstone of the former and current Mayors’ philanthropic initiatives, facilitating public-private collaborations that support initiatives which respond to the needs of the city’s most disadvantaged communities.

(2)  Give Local

Community organisations need to be better prepared to work with companies’ sense of place at a more local level. In recent years there has been a proliferation of intermediary and brokerage organisations which match private companies with civil society organisations. East London Business Alliance; Heart of the City; City Action and Team London, as well as local models like Business and Community Together in Kensington and Chelsea, Community Southwark or Love Kingston pair companies, including SMEs, with charities, source employee volunteers and introduce business skills to community organisations.

The emergence also of place-based giving initiatives, on the back of the success of Islington Giving, and the growth of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), provide additional infrastructure and conduits for engaging businesses in civil society locally. And yet there is a strong sense that much of this activity is happening in relative isolation, if not in competition, rather than based on a shared sense of purpose or a common vision for how business can best support London’s civil society.[16]

  • Influencing CSR beyond the FTSE 250 is about getting to SMEs. This requires finding new conduits or points of contact with companies of this size which are committed long-term to particular town centres or neighbourhoods in the capital. Last year Rocket Science and Future of London wrote a report for the GLA/LEP on Business Improvement Districts in the capital of which there are now more than 50 – a quarter of the total in the UK. It argued that BIDs are a potential broker and convenor of business engagement in local communities and in supporting civil society. Some are doing this already (eg Better BanksideBaker Street Quarter Partnership); more could be persuaded or shown how. The GLA has contemplated setting up a BIDs’ Innovation Fund – why not include as one of the fund’s themes an invitation for BID partnerships to support Civil Society Organisations and local infrastructure?

(3) Give Together

On a thematic basis, the Big Lottery Fund, on the back of recent research by Collaborate, is recommending the mapping of London’s funding ecology. This should better equip the funding community in London to align and complement their work, resulting in more effective distribution of funds to meet the needs of Londoners, whilst also providing a way ahead for businesses which are interested in co-investing in a shared agenda.[17]

  • Employer Supported Volunteering – this initiative, a plank in the Conservative Party’s 2015 Manifesto, has had a somewhat stop-start evolution.  http://blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2015/07/10/from-csr-to-hr-the-future-of-employer-supported-volunteering/  For this to work, it needs effective brokers (at the local level) which connect business volunteers to VCSOs (and other manifestations of a civil society). This has to be more than about teams painting community buildings – though that has its place. At a pan London level, there seems an opportunity for an agency like the GLA’s Team London to promote and broker Lawyers for London; Accountants for London; Planners for London etc. – ie connecting the professions to communities where the skills and resources are so needed and where they can be applied for mutual benefit.
  • Social Value Act – potentially this legislation gives statutory sector commissioners greater leverage over business and redefines the parameters for CSR. Instead of companies defining their responsibilities and deciding what they would like to contribute, the public sector can now set the agenda and determine the priorities. The Way Ahead task group which has looked at Consistent Commissioning found examples of commissioners now developing a prospectus or, in the case of the Mayor of Liverpool, a Social Value Charter which is a call to action for business to invest more as partners in the local communities of Liverpool.

According to Robert Watts, the new compiler of the Rich List, HM Revenue and Customs, along with divorce lawyers, estate agents and auction houses take more than a passing interest in the List’s annual publication. Collectively, London’s statutory and independent funders should too.

For more information on The Way Ahead please refer to: http://londonfunders.org.uk/what-we-do/london-funders-projects

[1] The Sunday Times Magazine, Rich List 2017, May 7 2017

[2] https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/richest-1000-people-have-more-wealth-poorest-40

[3] London’s 2015 Poverty Profile, Trust for London

[4] London Communities Commission

[5] London Fairness Commission 2016 p53.

[6] See: Prosperity and poverty – the challenge of social renewal in difficult times The Chris Patten Lecture, given by Julia Unwin at Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal, 22 November 2016

[7] See, for example, the report of The London Communities Commission: Evidence and Draft Recommendations for Action with the Business Sector, March 2016

[8] Mohan, J. and Breeze. B. (2015) The Logic of Charity: Great Expectations in Hard Times, Macmillan

[9] http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/our-key-themes/local-government-finance/local-government-funding-and-expenditure/total-funding

[10] Davies, R. (2016) Public good by private means. Charities Aid Foundation

[11] Bradley, K. (2009) Poverty, Philanthropy and the State: Charities and the Working Classes in London

[12] Pharoah, C. and Walker, C. (2015) ‘More to Give: London Millennials networking towards a Better World’ City Philanthropy

[13] Pharoah, C. and Walker, C. (2015) ‘More to Give: London Millennials working towards a better world’ City Philanthropy

[14] London Fairness Commission (2016)

[15] Figures quoted in the report of The London Communities Commission: Evidence and Draft Recommendations for Action with the Business Sector, March 2016

[16] The Evolution of London’s Business Improvement Districts (2016)

[17] A New Funding Ecology – A Blueprint for Action (2015)

John is the Managing Director at Rocket Science based in our London office.  You can check his profile here.