- Email: [email protected]
Fundraising
328
proJ~,ssional Notes
Fundraising Creating Sustainable Funding for Natural History Collections in the New World Orderm Foundations and Corporations: Old Allies, New Opportunities Introduction Today the greatest challenge facing Natural History Museums, and for the early 21st century, is not political unrest in some far-flung emerging nation, the illicit trade in collectible patrimony, or the erosion of the interest of the global public in biodiversitv and the mysteries of the natural world'. The greatest challenge is funding, or--perhaps said better--access to funding, especially for at-risk collections in developing nations. For solving this access to funding puzzle is the key to improved infrastructure, innovation, new technologies, and gaining a stake in global growth. In very real marketing terms, many of the estimated 6,500 museums and institutions worldwide which hold natural science collections appear to live in the philosophical shadow of the Industrial Revolution, rather than the laser light of the Information Age. The dilemma is a harsh one. Instead of knowledge warehouses of natural science information available in Cyberspace, several billion specimens languish, at best, under 19th century conditions, if Frank M. Howie is correct (see 'Natural Science Collections: Extent and Scope of Preservation Problems', in Int. Syrup. & First World Congress on Pres. and Cons. of Nat. Hist. Col., Volume 3, p.101): "... it is likely that museums and similar institutions will need to house and manage a resource of twelve billion specimens by the middle of the next centurv." Furthermore, according to Howie's analysis, this "represents a growth of 500% over today's collection holdings", and be
underscores the reasonableness of his extrapolation by noting that world collections have "grown by 300% over the past seventy years and there is mounting pressure to record biological diversity." How, then, do natural history collections hope to address the impending multi-billion dollar financial burden, much less the severity surrounding preservation? It depends upon whether these collections are viewed as vital resources or just dusty repositories. In the United Nations report, Global Biodiversity Assessment, in addition to the pronouncement of the extinction of 484 species of animals and 654 plants described since the year 1600, the document details that some 80% of the top prescription drugs are "natural products, synthetic compounds modeled on natural products or semisynthetic compounds derived from such products" (see U.S. News & World Report, Nov. 27, 1995, p.23). The point being made here is that more than 25,000 plant species are used in medicine and that natural history collections--present and future--may play an increasingly important role in the delivery of high quality, cost-effective health care worldwide. It is these 'shared values'--what foundations and corporations alike call 'vision' or mission statements--that empower natural history~ collections with the vitality to attract significant funding in an era of downsizing and virtual corporate reality. As noted by Dr. Nell Chalmers, Director of the Natural History Museum, London, in his paper to the First World Congress (see 'Achieving Strategic Change: Natural History Collections for the Twenty-First Century', 143ff.), the challenges facing collections are both attitude and finances. In this Professional Note global funding trends are examined, not least with regard to how changes in attitude toward defining 'mission' in economic terms can substantially• improve both the current status and the potential for sustainability for natural history collections into the mid-21st century. As others are addressing elsewhere governmental and quasigovernmental funding sources (The
Professional Notes
329
this should bode well for natural history collections in search of vibrant consortial partners with whom to approach funders for support, but the reality, according to Ms. Alexeeva, is that the "non-profits... exist only because the state is now weak in Russia" (ibid.). The re-emergence of a strong state, then, would mean a transfer of nonprofit functions back to the State, in her scenario. Second, of these trans-national founFoundations If we examine the 50,000 or so founda- dations, only a handful have goals easily tions worldwide, several facts and trends met by current programs or the needs of natural history collections as defined in immediately emerge: First, fewer than 2,000 foundations museum missions. The problem is not 'cross' international borders to support just limited to funding for programs in projects. This is more a function of developing nations. According to the donor missions, lack of global vision, Foundation Center (see 'Foundation and tax/legal issues than political con- Giving Fails to Keep Up with Inflation' siderations. Of those that do, the central in The Chronicle of Philanthrop> focus seems to be directed towards the August 8, 1996, p.16), museums in the re-establishment of civil society, with the United States generally lost ground last creation of democratic institutions, free year (1995), as did giving to international markets and mass media, improved causes. Support for science stayed level health care, and Internet connections the at about 4%--hardly grounds for optimost fundable components (see, for mism. Looking specifically at United example, special initiatives by the Soros States foundation funding for natural Foundations and the report commis- history museums during the early 1990s, sioned by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund taken in two-year segments, some 350 entitled, The Rebirth of Civil Society." grants of $10,000 or more seemed the The Development of the Nonprofit Sec- norm--about 3.5% of all the grant tor in East Central Europe and the Role dollars within the category "Arts, Culof Western Assistance by Daniel Siegel ture & the Humanities". Third, foundations are generally movand Jenny Yancey). Areas of regional interest include the former Soviet Union, ing toward a format in which 'Requests the Balkans, Central Europe, South for Proposals' (RFPs) address specific Africa, and Rainforests and Coral Reefs issues within that foundation's mission statement. This is especially true of the worldwide. While natural history collections may United States. Seemingly, more and more have been eligible for some training foundations are following the lead of support during the initial euphoria fol- what are known as operating foundalowing the collapse of the Soviet Union, tions, which run their own programs the move now is away from training rather than openly making grants to nonprofit executives and boards. This is non-profit groups. According to the unfortunate, especially in Russia which Foundation Center, such giving rose by has undergone explosive growth in the 22% to U.S. $172 million. The result of non-profit sector. In 1987, the number of this is a serious and fundamental denial non-profits there totalled approximately of access to more funding sources for 40. According to Olga Alexeeva, writing natural history collections, whether they in Foundation Nezc,s and Commentary are in the Global South (the Caribbean ('The Taste of Pineapple', January/Feb- Basin, Central and South America, ruary 1996, p.14), the number now is Africa), the ex-Communist Countries roughly 35,000 groups. On the face of it, (ECCs), or the richer nations. Such a
World Bank, United Nations, etc.), the discussion here is limited to global foundations and corporations and the importance of successfully meeting the mission/vision of a funder through dynamic, cost-efficient consortial projects. Again, the emphasis is access, with the most important access that to a strong consortial funding partner.
330
Professional Notes
move also serves as blocked access to useful consortial partners who may have been identified with the help of the foundation. It has often been suggested that the greatest threat to a donor's wishes is the foundation concept 'in perpetuity'. This is clearly the case for those collections/museums totally dependent upon traditional foundatioll funding sources. The New World Order has turned conventional foundation thinking upside down, with a move toward traditional values (in this context, democratization) and away from traditional institutions (museums, etc.). Fourth, generally speaking, foundations are behind the technology curve when it cornes to the Internet and home pages on the World Wide Web. Futurists at natural history museums recognize that the museum of tomorrow will be on-line and real-time interactive (virtual museum). Equally frustrating is the fundamental lack of understanding of collection needs--especially in terms of environmental control and emergency general operating funding. Fifth, the competitive environment has changed. Now, collections are coin peting against even governmental bodies for foundation dollars as decentralization and a reframing of civil societv mean downsizing and new assumptions about what is valued in a society. The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, which profiled nonprofit eco nomic activity in 12 nations, pointed out that 43% ot~ nonprofit income in the average of seven of the countries studied was governmental. That is cause for alarm in the best of times. Add to this the explosive proliferation of nonprofits worldwide--some 110,000 in just thrcc years in the U.S. alone--and one has a sense that the competition for funding is fierce and getting fiercer. And consider this: grant awards by foundations (in the U.S.) account for less than 1% of the budgets of nonprofits. Yet, it can bc argued that a 1% increase in funding for a natural history collection in a developing nation coul(t mean the addition of a part- or full-time conservator.
With this said, your fundamental strategy is three-fold: (1) Identify those natural history collections in the rich nations who, because their own museums and foundation funding sources are at-risk (governmental cut-backs, etc.), are seeking innovative solutions and new consortial partners capable of attracting significant financial support, ideally over at least a three-year period. (2) Develop consortial proposals that combine public education, some staff training, and related infrastructure development (Internet connection, preservation technology, perhaps limited air-conditioning if the project involves an exhibit). Be clear that you request part of the institutional ~werhead that the consortial partner will build into the proposal. (3) Focus on creating a personal relationship between your collection and foundations, beginning with local funders, moving regionally (Europe, or Asia, Oceana, etc.), and finally to longer-term global sources. Remember: your mission statement is key to this relationship, as it defines your collection and is the number 1 source of ideas for foundation grant support.
Corporations When corporate executives discuss global warming, it usuallv concerns the business, rather than the natural environment. Their focus is the growth of global hot spots which offer the best opportunities for commerce and the creation of wealth. Consequently, where companies locatc subsidiaries during the early 21st century could have a profound, positive impact upon natural history museums in terms of col]ections attracting corporate volunteers, in-kind contributions (equipment and supplies), access to the Information Supcrhighwa B and cash grants. Briefly, these regions of opportunity arc categorized as 'cool', 'warm', or 'hot' spots (see ' C I O 100 World Leaders',
Professional Notes CIO, August 1996, especially map on page 38). In the cool zone, e.g., that with the least expected growth, is much of Africa and the Middle East. The existence of fragile economies, relative isolation, unstable governments, and high poverty means trans-national companies will adopt a wait-and-see posture in terms of investment. Adapting a simple overlay using Professor Michael A. Mare's table of "Demographic and Museum Data for the World" (see 'Natural History Museums: Bridging the Past and the Future' in Int. Syrup. & First World Congress on Pres. and Cons. of Nat. Hist. Col." Vol. 3, 377ff.) indicates that--excluding South Africa--nearly 140 natural history museums have the potential for falling even farther behind in terms of access to funding partners-in this case, corporations. Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union fare a bit better as warm spots, with Poland and Romania expected to experience strong multi-national business growth. In spite of the competition of nonprofits detailed earlier, some 350 natural history museums in strategic locations such as the port of Constanta, Romania, could reap real benefits as transnational companies begin the process of improving infrastructure and employee amenities. Western Europe, Japan, and the United States also fall within the warm zone, as high deficits and mature markets offer only marginal investment incentive. South America, on the other hand, is as hot as a chili pepper. Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina are the chief targets• The roughly 200 natural history museums there could benefit markedly, depending upon the kind of industry and the collections' ability to meet specific marketing plans and corporate visions. According to John Naisbitt, author of Megatrends Asia: The Eight Asian Megatrends That are Changing the World (1996), Asia is the hottest of the hot and is positioned to dominate the world's economy in what many have termed the coming Asian Century• Collections in China, Indonesia, India, Malaysia, and
331
Vietnam take note, as with software engineering, the rush for upscale consumer goods, and improvements in health care will mean an influx of technology and consumer subsidiaries• In the hot regions, especially, we predict an infusion of corporate investment philanthropy that will mean the creation of 'communities of interest'--in this context a technical term meaning zones of philanthropy for local, regional, or national giving. Many of the key indicators for such a trend are already in place. As reported in the Chronicle of Philanthropy ('Companies Forecast First Significant Increases in Giving in 5 Years', September 21, 1995, p.12), American corporations have "begun to build up reserves in their company foundations•" This occurs at a time when the Japanese, for example, are moving forward rapidly in the creation of corporate foundations within the U.S. By the early 21st Centur B one in every 20 foundations in the U.S. will most likely be that of a Japanese corporation. Worldwide, corporate giving is also changing, with clear opportunity for the aggressive natural history collection with a global, long-range view. Unlike American-based companies, for example, which are traditionally less strategic in their giving ('get-off-tile-grass' grants to local non-profits), global corporations see philanthropy as an extension of marketing. Cultural differences aside (primarily because global companies usually function within local subsidiary cultures rather than externally), global corporations tend to focus their efforts on the following: (1) Roughly 90% are communityfocused, looking at local institutions; (2) Educational institutions are a top priority with nearly one-third--primarily as a function of reaping the benefits of research related to their industry or their parent companies; (3) Nearly 7% of all donations have an environmental focus--unlike American companies, which target only
332
Professional Notes
1% of their total philanthropy within this category; and (4) Employee volunteerism is highly encouraged and--at least within the U.S.--some 48% of foreign firms match charitable donations made by workers. This is occurring at a time when American companies are re-examining their philanthropic support offshore. According to a Conference Board report in 1993, much of the American corporate philanthropy was focused in Western Europe (42%) and Canada (22%). Africa (15%), South America (12%), and the Pacific Rim (9%) filled " j was the out the equation, dE ducanon central thrust with 33% of the donations. The biggest problem experienced bv American companies, unlike their gJobal counterparts, was an apparent inability to evaluate the impact of the overseas grants or to deal effectively with the cultural differences (see the Conference Board, 'Global Contributions of U.S. Corporations'). Today, we may expect a re-shifting of these resources as American trans-nationals look at 'Emerging Markets for U.S. Companies' and make contributions based on their decisions. While global companies have been quick to adjust to these market opportunities, American companies have become more reflective. As noted by Craig Smith, an expert on corporate giving, in the Harvard Business Review" (see May-June, 1994 issue), "the strategic use of philanthropy has begun to give companies a powerful competitive edge." Unfortunately, in an era in which American corporate profits have been solid, CEOs are attempting to pare their philanthropic budgets and downsizing their staffs. American corporate leader ship in the global philanthropy arena may well be on the wane. Here, your strategy is access to the offices of CEOs. Several points: (1) For those companies which seem the best targets, develop small revolving exhibits of your collection which can be displayed prominently at the
facility. A sub-set of this exhibit should be created specifically for the office of the CEO. Your collection needs to be visible. (2) Conduct special, behind-the-scenes visits for not only CEOs and the families of decision-makers at corporations but for company clients/ suppliers, et al. who may be visiting the plant. Become an indispensable part of corporate culture as an ambassador of the natural history of your area/nation. (3) Become attuned to the sister companies of the subsidiary. The world's largest manufacturer of machine tools--a Japanese company--also produces environmental monitoring devices suitable for small museum use.
Remember: global companies are searching for themes that have a direct bearing on some aspect of the corporate Vision--which includes penetration and exposure in new markets, new consumers, and access to governmental decision-makers you probably already know.
Recommendations When in doubt, follow the money. (1) Diversify your fundraising efforts. Governmental monies are at-risk, globally. Your new strategy must be more market driven. What you have to sell is information in the global age. Create a product advantage ('unique selling proposition'/USP) for your collection. What are its strengths? How can these be translated into joint projects with foundations and corporations? (2) Recognize that the mission of the foundation or corporation is of primary importance. To them, your goals and your audience are of secondary importance. In a survey conducted by Bain & Co./Boston and reported in the Journal of Business Strategy, 500 leaders at 460 major corporations reported their mission statements as the #1 business tool.
Professional Notes
(3)
(4)
(5) (6)
Revisit your mission annually, with the goal of making it more responsive to global community needs and desires. According to Patricia Jones and Larry Kahaner in Say It and Live It: "The 50 Corporate Mission Statements that Hit the Mark (Currency/Doubleday), "Mission statements are the operational, ethical, and financial guiding lights of companies. They are not simply mottoes or slogans; they articulate the goals, dreams, behavior, culture, and strategies of companies." Conduct an overlay, as suggested above, to determine which foundations and corporations are (a) most active in your market now and (b) are most apt to become active. Goal is to help them meet their missions. Do not overlook controversial companies which may be linked to public-health or environmental issues. These often prove to be the best partners as it is in a company's best interest to be perceived to be a good neighbor and to advocate for sustainable resources. Venture forth into Cyberspace. Home pages. On-line $$$ searches. (For companies, see The American Leadership Forum's web site, which is providing corporations with advice, re: improving corporate-giving programs, equipment donations, etc. URL." http:/http://www.alfsv.org/involve/). Get your financial reports in good order. Accountability is the watchword of the late 20th century. Begin the process early of identifying and soliciting joint venture/consortial partners. Choose those with (a) a
333
history of giving money or (b) a track-record for attracting money. (7) Use volunteerism as the first step in soliciting corporate partners. Then move to requests of in-kind contributions (equipment and supplies) and, finally, cash. (8) While not treated in this paper, remember that tourism and travel is the largest industry in the world, generating $2 trillion a year in spending. In most countries, tourism is the nation's largest industry. Promoting your collection through your nation's tourism board, hotel chains, etc., will bring visitors and money through your doors and improve your case for support. (9) Finally, provide measurable results for all projects. While corporations and foundations generally cannot be expected to provide more than 12% of your total needs, they open the door to increased giving from both individuals and government--even in recessionary times.
Acknowledgement--My thanks to RTZCRA Group, Gateway 2000, and Museums & Galleries Commission for making my participation in this event possible. WILLIAM E VARTORELLA
This Note is an edited version of the paper delivered to the Second World Congress on the Preservation and Conservation of Natural History Collections, held at the University of Cambridge, August 1996. The opinions expressed here are my own.
proJ~,ssional Notes
Fundraising Creating Sustainable Funding for Natural History Collections in the New World Orderm Foundations and Corporations: Old Allies, New Opportunities Introduction Today the greatest challenge facing Natural History Museums, and for the early 21st century, is not political unrest in some far-flung emerging nation, the illicit trade in collectible patrimony, or the erosion of the interest of the global public in biodiversitv and the mysteries of the natural world'. The greatest challenge is funding, or--perhaps said better--access to funding, especially for at-risk collections in developing nations. For solving this access to funding puzzle is the key to improved infrastructure, innovation, new technologies, and gaining a stake in global growth. In very real marketing terms, many of the estimated 6,500 museums and institutions worldwide which hold natural science collections appear to live in the philosophical shadow of the Industrial Revolution, rather than the laser light of the Information Age. The dilemma is a harsh one. Instead of knowledge warehouses of natural science information available in Cyberspace, several billion specimens languish, at best, under 19th century conditions, if Frank M. Howie is correct (see 'Natural Science Collections: Extent and Scope of Preservation Problems', in Int. Syrup. & First World Congress on Pres. and Cons. of Nat. Hist. Col., Volume 3, p.101): "... it is likely that museums and similar institutions will need to house and manage a resource of twelve billion specimens by the middle of the next centurv." Furthermore, according to Howie's analysis, this "represents a growth of 500% over today's collection holdings", and be
underscores the reasonableness of his extrapolation by noting that world collections have "grown by 300% over the past seventy years and there is mounting pressure to record biological diversity." How, then, do natural history collections hope to address the impending multi-billion dollar financial burden, much less the severity surrounding preservation? It depends upon whether these collections are viewed as vital resources or just dusty repositories. In the United Nations report, Global Biodiversity Assessment, in addition to the pronouncement of the extinction of 484 species of animals and 654 plants described since the year 1600, the document details that some 80% of the top prescription drugs are "natural products, synthetic compounds modeled on natural products or semisynthetic compounds derived from such products" (see U.S. News & World Report, Nov. 27, 1995, p.23). The point being made here is that more than 25,000 plant species are used in medicine and that natural history collections--present and future--may play an increasingly important role in the delivery of high quality, cost-effective health care worldwide. It is these 'shared values'--what foundations and corporations alike call 'vision' or mission statements--that empower natural history~ collections with the vitality to attract significant funding in an era of downsizing and virtual corporate reality. As noted by Dr. Nell Chalmers, Director of the Natural History Museum, London, in his paper to the First World Congress (see 'Achieving Strategic Change: Natural History Collections for the Twenty-First Century', 143ff.), the challenges facing collections are both attitude and finances. In this Professional Note global funding trends are examined, not least with regard to how changes in attitude toward defining 'mission' in economic terms can substantially• improve both the current status and the potential for sustainability for natural history collections into the mid-21st century. As others are addressing elsewhere governmental and quasigovernmental funding sources (The
Professional Notes
329
this should bode well for natural history collections in search of vibrant consortial partners with whom to approach funders for support, but the reality, according to Ms. Alexeeva, is that the "non-profits... exist only because the state is now weak in Russia" (ibid.). The re-emergence of a strong state, then, would mean a transfer of nonprofit functions back to the State, in her scenario. Second, of these trans-national founFoundations If we examine the 50,000 or so founda- dations, only a handful have goals easily tions worldwide, several facts and trends met by current programs or the needs of natural history collections as defined in immediately emerge: First, fewer than 2,000 foundations museum missions. The problem is not 'cross' international borders to support just limited to funding for programs in projects. This is more a function of developing nations. According to the donor missions, lack of global vision, Foundation Center (see 'Foundation and tax/legal issues than political con- Giving Fails to Keep Up with Inflation' siderations. Of those that do, the central in The Chronicle of Philanthrop> focus seems to be directed towards the August 8, 1996, p.16), museums in the re-establishment of civil society, with the United States generally lost ground last creation of democratic institutions, free year (1995), as did giving to international markets and mass media, improved causes. Support for science stayed level health care, and Internet connections the at about 4%--hardly grounds for optimost fundable components (see, for mism. Looking specifically at United example, special initiatives by the Soros States foundation funding for natural Foundations and the report commis- history museums during the early 1990s, sioned by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund taken in two-year segments, some 350 entitled, The Rebirth of Civil Society." grants of $10,000 or more seemed the The Development of the Nonprofit Sec- norm--about 3.5% of all the grant tor in East Central Europe and the Role dollars within the category "Arts, Culof Western Assistance by Daniel Siegel ture & the Humanities". Third, foundations are generally movand Jenny Yancey). Areas of regional interest include the former Soviet Union, ing toward a format in which 'Requests the Balkans, Central Europe, South for Proposals' (RFPs) address specific Africa, and Rainforests and Coral Reefs issues within that foundation's mission statement. This is especially true of the worldwide. While natural history collections may United States. Seemingly, more and more have been eligible for some training foundations are following the lead of support during the initial euphoria fol- what are known as operating foundalowing the collapse of the Soviet Union, tions, which run their own programs the move now is away from training rather than openly making grants to nonprofit executives and boards. This is non-profit groups. According to the unfortunate, especially in Russia which Foundation Center, such giving rose by has undergone explosive growth in the 22% to U.S. $172 million. The result of non-profit sector. In 1987, the number of this is a serious and fundamental denial non-profits there totalled approximately of access to more funding sources for 40. According to Olga Alexeeva, writing natural history collections, whether they in Foundation Nezc,s and Commentary are in the Global South (the Caribbean ('The Taste of Pineapple', January/Feb- Basin, Central and South America, ruary 1996, p.14), the number now is Africa), the ex-Communist Countries roughly 35,000 groups. On the face of it, (ECCs), or the richer nations. Such a
World Bank, United Nations, etc.), the discussion here is limited to global foundations and corporations and the importance of successfully meeting the mission/vision of a funder through dynamic, cost-efficient consortial projects. Again, the emphasis is access, with the most important access that to a strong consortial funding partner.
330
Professional Notes
move also serves as blocked access to useful consortial partners who may have been identified with the help of the foundation. It has often been suggested that the greatest threat to a donor's wishes is the foundation concept 'in perpetuity'. This is clearly the case for those collections/museums totally dependent upon traditional foundatioll funding sources. The New World Order has turned conventional foundation thinking upside down, with a move toward traditional values (in this context, democratization) and away from traditional institutions (museums, etc.). Fourth, generally speaking, foundations are behind the technology curve when it cornes to the Internet and home pages on the World Wide Web. Futurists at natural history museums recognize that the museum of tomorrow will be on-line and real-time interactive (virtual museum). Equally frustrating is the fundamental lack of understanding of collection needs--especially in terms of environmental control and emergency general operating funding. Fifth, the competitive environment has changed. Now, collections are coin peting against even governmental bodies for foundation dollars as decentralization and a reframing of civil societv mean downsizing and new assumptions about what is valued in a society. The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, which profiled nonprofit eco nomic activity in 12 nations, pointed out that 43% ot~ nonprofit income in the average of seven of the countries studied was governmental. That is cause for alarm in the best of times. Add to this the explosive proliferation of nonprofits worldwide--some 110,000 in just thrcc years in the U.S. alone--and one has a sense that the competition for funding is fierce and getting fiercer. And consider this: grant awards by foundations (in the U.S.) account for less than 1% of the budgets of nonprofits. Yet, it can bc argued that a 1% increase in funding for a natural history collection in a developing nation coul(t mean the addition of a part- or full-time conservator.
With this said, your fundamental strategy is three-fold: (1) Identify those natural history collections in the rich nations who, because their own museums and foundation funding sources are at-risk (governmental cut-backs, etc.), are seeking innovative solutions and new consortial partners capable of attracting significant financial support, ideally over at least a three-year period. (2) Develop consortial proposals that combine public education, some staff training, and related infrastructure development (Internet connection, preservation technology, perhaps limited air-conditioning if the project involves an exhibit). Be clear that you request part of the institutional ~werhead that the consortial partner will build into the proposal. (3) Focus on creating a personal relationship between your collection and foundations, beginning with local funders, moving regionally (Europe, or Asia, Oceana, etc.), and finally to longer-term global sources. Remember: your mission statement is key to this relationship, as it defines your collection and is the number 1 source of ideas for foundation grant support.
Corporations When corporate executives discuss global warming, it usuallv concerns the business, rather than the natural environment. Their focus is the growth of global hot spots which offer the best opportunities for commerce and the creation of wealth. Consequently, where companies locatc subsidiaries during the early 21st century could have a profound, positive impact upon natural history museums in terms of col]ections attracting corporate volunteers, in-kind contributions (equipment and supplies), access to the Information Supcrhighwa B and cash grants. Briefly, these regions of opportunity arc categorized as 'cool', 'warm', or 'hot' spots (see ' C I O 100 World Leaders',
Professional Notes CIO, August 1996, especially map on page 38). In the cool zone, e.g., that with the least expected growth, is much of Africa and the Middle East. The existence of fragile economies, relative isolation, unstable governments, and high poverty means trans-national companies will adopt a wait-and-see posture in terms of investment. Adapting a simple overlay using Professor Michael A. Mare's table of "Demographic and Museum Data for the World" (see 'Natural History Museums: Bridging the Past and the Future' in Int. Syrup. & First World Congress on Pres. and Cons. of Nat. Hist. Col." Vol. 3, 377ff.) indicates that--excluding South Africa--nearly 140 natural history museums have the potential for falling even farther behind in terms of access to funding partners-in this case, corporations. Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union fare a bit better as warm spots, with Poland and Romania expected to experience strong multi-national business growth. In spite of the competition of nonprofits detailed earlier, some 350 natural history museums in strategic locations such as the port of Constanta, Romania, could reap real benefits as transnational companies begin the process of improving infrastructure and employee amenities. Western Europe, Japan, and the United States also fall within the warm zone, as high deficits and mature markets offer only marginal investment incentive. South America, on the other hand, is as hot as a chili pepper. Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina are the chief targets• The roughly 200 natural history museums there could benefit markedly, depending upon the kind of industry and the collections' ability to meet specific marketing plans and corporate visions. According to John Naisbitt, author of Megatrends Asia: The Eight Asian Megatrends That are Changing the World (1996), Asia is the hottest of the hot and is positioned to dominate the world's economy in what many have termed the coming Asian Century• Collections in China, Indonesia, India, Malaysia, and
331
Vietnam take note, as with software engineering, the rush for upscale consumer goods, and improvements in health care will mean an influx of technology and consumer subsidiaries• In the hot regions, especially, we predict an infusion of corporate investment philanthropy that will mean the creation of 'communities of interest'--in this context a technical term meaning zones of philanthropy for local, regional, or national giving. Many of the key indicators for such a trend are already in place. As reported in the Chronicle of Philanthropy ('Companies Forecast First Significant Increases in Giving in 5 Years', September 21, 1995, p.12), American corporations have "begun to build up reserves in their company foundations•" This occurs at a time when the Japanese, for example, are moving forward rapidly in the creation of corporate foundations within the U.S. By the early 21st Centur B one in every 20 foundations in the U.S. will most likely be that of a Japanese corporation. Worldwide, corporate giving is also changing, with clear opportunity for the aggressive natural history collection with a global, long-range view. Unlike American-based companies, for example, which are traditionally less strategic in their giving ('get-off-tile-grass' grants to local non-profits), global corporations see philanthropy as an extension of marketing. Cultural differences aside (primarily because global companies usually function within local subsidiary cultures rather than externally), global corporations tend to focus their efforts on the following: (1) Roughly 90% are communityfocused, looking at local institutions; (2) Educational institutions are a top priority with nearly one-third--primarily as a function of reaping the benefits of research related to their industry or their parent companies; (3) Nearly 7% of all donations have an environmental focus--unlike American companies, which target only
332
Professional Notes
1% of their total philanthropy within this category; and (4) Employee volunteerism is highly encouraged and--at least within the U.S.--some 48% of foreign firms match charitable donations made by workers. This is occurring at a time when American companies are re-examining their philanthropic support offshore. According to a Conference Board report in 1993, much of the American corporate philanthropy was focused in Western Europe (42%) and Canada (22%). Africa (15%), South America (12%), and the Pacific Rim (9%) filled " j was the out the equation, dE ducanon central thrust with 33% of the donations. The biggest problem experienced bv American companies, unlike their gJobal counterparts, was an apparent inability to evaluate the impact of the overseas grants or to deal effectively with the cultural differences (see the Conference Board, 'Global Contributions of U.S. Corporations'). Today, we may expect a re-shifting of these resources as American trans-nationals look at 'Emerging Markets for U.S. Companies' and make contributions based on their decisions. While global companies have been quick to adjust to these market opportunities, American companies have become more reflective. As noted by Craig Smith, an expert on corporate giving, in the Harvard Business Review" (see May-June, 1994 issue), "the strategic use of philanthropy has begun to give companies a powerful competitive edge." Unfortunately, in an era in which American corporate profits have been solid, CEOs are attempting to pare their philanthropic budgets and downsizing their staffs. American corporate leader ship in the global philanthropy arena may well be on the wane. Here, your strategy is access to the offices of CEOs. Several points: (1) For those companies which seem the best targets, develop small revolving exhibits of your collection which can be displayed prominently at the
facility. A sub-set of this exhibit should be created specifically for the office of the CEO. Your collection needs to be visible. (2) Conduct special, behind-the-scenes visits for not only CEOs and the families of decision-makers at corporations but for company clients/ suppliers, et al. who may be visiting the plant. Become an indispensable part of corporate culture as an ambassador of the natural history of your area/nation. (3) Become attuned to the sister companies of the subsidiary. The world's largest manufacturer of machine tools--a Japanese company--also produces environmental monitoring devices suitable for small museum use.
Remember: global companies are searching for themes that have a direct bearing on some aspect of the corporate Vision--which includes penetration and exposure in new markets, new consumers, and access to governmental decision-makers you probably already know.
Recommendations When in doubt, follow the money. (1) Diversify your fundraising efforts. Governmental monies are at-risk, globally. Your new strategy must be more market driven. What you have to sell is information in the global age. Create a product advantage ('unique selling proposition'/USP) for your collection. What are its strengths? How can these be translated into joint projects with foundations and corporations? (2) Recognize that the mission of the foundation or corporation is of primary importance. To them, your goals and your audience are of secondary importance. In a survey conducted by Bain & Co./Boston and reported in the Journal of Business Strategy, 500 leaders at 460 major corporations reported their mission statements as the #1 business tool.
Professional Notes
(3)
(4)
(5) (6)
Revisit your mission annually, with the goal of making it more responsive to global community needs and desires. According to Patricia Jones and Larry Kahaner in Say It and Live It: "The 50 Corporate Mission Statements that Hit the Mark (Currency/Doubleday), "Mission statements are the operational, ethical, and financial guiding lights of companies. They are not simply mottoes or slogans; they articulate the goals, dreams, behavior, culture, and strategies of companies." Conduct an overlay, as suggested above, to determine which foundations and corporations are (a) most active in your market now and (b) are most apt to become active. Goal is to help them meet their missions. Do not overlook controversial companies which may be linked to public-health or environmental issues. These often prove to be the best partners as it is in a company's best interest to be perceived to be a good neighbor and to advocate for sustainable resources. Venture forth into Cyberspace. Home pages. On-line $$$ searches. (For companies, see The American Leadership Forum's web site, which is providing corporations with advice, re: improving corporate-giving programs, equipment donations, etc. URL." http:/http://www.alfsv.org/involve/). Get your financial reports in good order. Accountability is the watchword of the late 20th century. Begin the process early of identifying and soliciting joint venture/consortial partners. Choose those with (a) a
333
history of giving money or (b) a track-record for attracting money. (7) Use volunteerism as the first step in soliciting corporate partners. Then move to requests of in-kind contributions (equipment and supplies) and, finally, cash. (8) While not treated in this paper, remember that tourism and travel is the largest industry in the world, generating $2 trillion a year in spending. In most countries, tourism is the nation's largest industry. Promoting your collection through your nation's tourism board, hotel chains, etc., will bring visitors and money through your doors and improve your case for support. (9) Finally, provide measurable results for all projects. While corporations and foundations generally cannot be expected to provide more than 12% of your total needs, they open the door to increased giving from both individuals and government--even in recessionary times.
Acknowledgement--My thanks to RTZCRA Group, Gateway 2000, and Museums & Galleries Commission for making my participation in this event possible. WILLIAM E VARTORELLA
This Note is an edited version of the paper delivered to the Second World Congress on the Preservation and Conservation of Natural History Collections, held at the University of Cambridge, August 1996. The opinions expressed here are my own.