Abstract
Following a brief presentation of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) outcome and reactions to it, the chapter introduces some of the core theoretical debates associated with the study of philanthropic foundations’ involvement in the international climate debate. It looks at how the existence of underlying agendas in foundations raises important legitimacy and accountability concerns. The chapter also analyses philanthropic foundations’ broader societal functions—and in particular their role as field-builders. In a final section, it presents the main issues raised by the book—to what extent and how did foundations shape and orientate the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and international climate regime more broadly? And correspondingly, what influence did foundations wield on the Paris outcome?—and offers an overview of the different chapters.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Historic pact to curb emissions is approved” (The Washington Post), “195 countries reach historic deal to combat climate change” (Boston Sunday Globe), “Nations approve landmark climate deal” (The New York Times), “A major leap for mankind: world leaders hail Paris deal on climate” (The Observer), “195 nations sign groundbreaking climate accord to cut fossil fuel use” (Haaretz), “Climate deal offers chance to save world” (Gulf News).
- 2.
As Newell writes, “more conservative ‘inside-insider’ groups […] employ traditional patterns of lobbying and interest representation, […] ‘inside-outsider’ groups […] are involved in the formal policy process but adopt more confrontational strategies to influence it, reflecting different ideologies regarding market mechanisms and the role of the private sector, for example. The final category identified is ‘oustide-outsiders’, which covers the position and strategy of those groups that are not involved in the formal policy negotiations on climate change, but rather seek to draw attention to the impacts of the problem on existing patterns of inequality and social injustice through a variety of campaigning tools and technologies of protest” (Newell 2005, 99–100).
- 3.
The UNFCCC distinguishes between “three categories of participants at meetings and conferences in the UNFCCC process: representatives of Parties to the Convention and Observer States, members of the press and media, and representatives of observer organizations. Observer organizations are further categorized into three types: the United Nations System and its Specialized Agencies, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). IGOs and NGOs can register delegates once they have received observer status, i.e. once they are admitted as observer organizations by the Conference of the Parties (COP).” http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/items/2704.php (accessed 10 April 2016).
- 4.
- 5.
http://europeanclimate.org/home/what-we-do/international-policies-politics/ (accessed 5 September 2015).
- 6.
http://www.wwf-jugend.de/leben/praktika-und-jobs/gruene-praktika-und-jobs;6022 (accessed 14 February 2016).
- 7.
The US bias of foundation literature is understandable given their overall importance in the USA and their role in fostering and shaping the US environmental movement.
- 8.
It is interesting to see that this replicates funds like Tides.
- 9.
Interestingly, the CDFE received funding from a number of corporations and foundations that are renowned for their anti-environmental stance (According to its 2003 Corporate Giving Report, ExxonMobil, for instance, donated USD 40,000 to CDFE in 2003 for “global climate change issues”).
- 10.
http://foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/keyfacts2014/foundation-focus.html (accessed 9 October 2015).
- 11.
http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top100assets.html (accessed 9 October 2015).
- 12.
http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top100giving.html (accessed 9 October 2015).
- 13.
http://www.efc.be/country_profile/united-kingdom/ (accessed 12 October 2015).
- 14.
The EGA brings together around 200 predominantly US foundations engaged in environmental grantmaking.
- 15.
Hewlett Foundation (30 %), Packard Foundation (18 %), Sea Change Foundation (11 %), Oak Foundation (5 %), Energy Foundation (5 %), Rockefeller Foundation (4%), National Postcode Lottery, Netherlands (3 %).
- 16.
This more active involvement of grantees can take the shape of Grantee Perception Reports (GPR) that offer grant recipients the possibility to share their experiences in working with a foundation (Fleishman 2009, 42).
- 17.
Examples include policy (conflict resolution) and academic fields (area studies, public administration, molecular biology).
Bibliography
Allen, Robert. 1969. Black Awakening in Capitalist America. New York: Anchor Books.
Anheier, Helmut K., and Siobhan Daly. 2004. Philanthropic Foundations: A New Global Force? In Global Civil Society 2004/5, eds. Helmut K. Anheier, Marlies Glasius, and Mary Kaldor, 158–176. London: Sage.
Arnold, Ron. 1999. Undue Influence: Wealthy Foundations, Grant-Driven Environmental Groups, and Zealous Bureaucrats that Control Your Future. Bellevue: Enterprise Press.
Arnove, Robert. 1980. Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad. Boston, MA: G.K. Hall.
Bäckstrand, Karin, and Eva Lövbrand. 2015. Research Handbook on Climate Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bartley, Tim. 2007. How Foundations Shape Social Movements: The Construction of an Organizational Field and the Rise of Forest Certification. Social Problems 54(3): 229–255.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Brulle, Robert J. 2013. Institutionalizing Delay: Foundation Funding and the Creation of U.S. Climate Change Counter-Movement Organizations. Climatic Changee 122(4): 681–694.
Brulle, Robert J., and Craig Jenkins. 2005. Foundations and the Environmental Movement: Priorities, Strategies, and Impact. In Foundations for Social Change: Critical Perspectives on Philanthropy and Popular Movements, eds. Daniel Faber and McCarthy Debra. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Caniglia, Beth Schaefer. 2001. Informal Alliances vs Institutional Ties: The Effects of Elite Alliances on Environmental TSMO Network Positions. Mobilization 6(1): 37–54.
Caniglia, Beth Schaefer, Robert J. Brulle, and Andrew Szasz. 2015. Civil Society, Social Movements and Climate Change. In Climate Change and Society, eds. Riley E. Dunlap and Robert J. Brulle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carbon Pulse. 2015. COP-21: Reaction to the Paris Climate Agreement. 12 December. Accessed February 5, 2016. http://carbon-pulse.com/13323/
Clotfelter, Charles T., and Thomas Ehrlich. 2001. Philanthropy and the Nonprofit Sector in a Changing America. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Cox, Paul T. 2015. Towards Paris 2015: The Climate Deal We Need. Effect, Autumn: 14–21.
Cunningham, Hugh. 2015. Philanthropy and Its Critics: A History. In New Philanthropy and Social Justice: Debating the Conceptual and Policy Discourse, ed. Behrooz Morvaridi, 17–31. Bristol: Policy Press.
Dietz, Matthias, and Heiko Garrelts. 2014. Routledge Handbook of the Climate Change Movement. Abingdon: Routledge.
Dodds, Felix, and Michael Strauss. 2004. How to Lobby at Intergovernmental Meetings: Mine’s a Caffe Latte. London: Earthscan.
Dowie, Mark. 2001. American Foundations: An Investigative History. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Dryzek, John S., and Hayley Stevenson. 2014. Democratizing Global Climate Governance. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
ECF. 2014. Annual Report 2013. The Hague: European Climate Foundation.
EGA. 2015. Tracking The Field 5. Washington, DC: Environmental Grantmakers Association.
EURACOAL. 2015. NGOs for Sale: How the US Super-Rich Influence EU Climate and Energy Policy. Brussels: EURACOAL.
Faber, Daniel R., and Deborah McCarthy. 2001. Green of Another Color: Building Effective Partnerships Between Foundations and the Environmental Justice Movement. Boston, MA: Northeastern University.
Fern, Nora, Marc Daudon, Imen Meliane, Amy Solomon, and Kendra White. 2015. Oak Foundation Environment Programme Evaluation: Executive Summary. External Evaluation. Seattle, WA: Cascadia Consulting Group.
Fleishman, Joel. 2009. The Foundation: A Great American Secret—How Private Wealth Is Changing the World. New York: PublicAffairs.
Friends of the Earth International. 2015. Where We Stand and Way Forward—Press Conference at COP21. 12 December. Accessed January 2, 2016. http://unfccc6.meta-fusion.com/cop21/events/2015-12-12-14-30-friends-of-the-earth-international-friend-for-the-earth-international-where-we-stand-and-way-forward
Frumkin, Peter. 1995. Philanthropy: Strangled Freedom. The American Scholar 64(4): 590–597.
———. 2006. Strategic Giving: The Art and Science of Philanthropy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldenberg, Suzanne. 2013. Secret Funding Helped Build Vast Network of Climate Denial Thinktanks. The Guardian, 14 February.
Greenpeace USA. 2010. Koch Industries Secretely Funding Climate Denial Machine. Washington, DC: Greenpeace USA.
Guilhot, Nicolas. 2006. Financiers, Philanthropes: Sociologie de Wall Street. Paris: Raisons d’Agir.
Hemphill, Bonnie. 2013. Funding the Next Chapter of the Climate Movement. Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.
Heydemann, Steven, and Stefan Toepler. 2006. Foundations and the Challenge of Legitimacy in Comparative Perspective. In The Legitimacy of Philanthropic Foundations: U.S. and European Perspectives, eds. Kenneth Prewitt, Mattei Dogan, Steven Heydemann, and Stefan Toepler, 3–26. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Jenkins, Craig J. 1998. Channeling Social Protest: Foundation Patronage of Contemporary Social Movements. In Private Interest and the Public Good, eds. Walter W. Powell and Elisabeth Clemens, 206–216. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Jenkins, Gary. 2011. Who’s Afraid of Philanthrocapitalism? Case Western Reserve Law Review 61(3): 753.
Kimball, Kristi, and Malka Kopell. 2011. Letting Go. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
Kramer, Larry, and Carol Larson. 2015. Foundations Must Move Fast to Fight Climate Change. 20 April. Accessed September 14, 2015. https://philanthropy.com/article/Foundations-Must-Move-Fast-to/229509
Laurence, Steven. 2010. Climate Change: The U.S. Foundation Response. New York: Foundation Center.
Lipschutz, Ronnie, and Corinna McKendry. 2011. Social Movements and Global Civil Society. In Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, eds. John Dryzek, Richard Norgaard, and David Scholsberg, 369–383. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Losson, Christian. 2015. COP21: “L’accord doit être une prophétie autoréalisatrice”. Libération, 17 December.
McGoey, Linsey. 2015. No Such Thing as a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy. London: Verso.
Minkoff, Debra, and John McCarthy. 2005. Reinvigorating the Study of Organizational Processes in Social Movements. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 10(2): 289–308.
Morgan, Jennifer. 2015. Setting the Bar for Success at the Paris Climate Summit. 30 September. Accessed October 8, 2015. http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/09/setting-bar-success-paris-climate-summit
Morvaridi, Behrooz. 2015. Introduction. In New Philanthropy and Social Justice: Debating the Conceptual and Policy Discourse, ed. Behrooz Morvaridi, 1–16. Bristol: Policy Press.
Newell, Peter. 2005. Climate for Change? Civil Society and the Politics of Global Warming. In Global Civil Society 2005/6, eds. Helmut K. Anheier, Mary Kaldor, and Marlies Glasius, 90–119. London: Sage.
Oberthür, Sebastian, Antonio G.M. La Vina, and Jennifer Morgan. 2015. Getting Specific on the 2015 Climate Change Agreement: Suggestions for the Legal Text with an Explanatory Memorandum. Working Paper. Washington, DC: Agreement for Climate Action 2015 (ACT2015).
Ostrander, Susan A., and Paul G. Schervish. 1990. Giving and Getting: Philanthropy as a Social Relation. In Critical Issues in American Philanthropy: Strengthening Theory and Practice, ed. Jon Van Til, 67–98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Plehwe, Dieter. 2014. Think Tank Networks and the Knowledge-Interest Nexus: The Case of Climate Change. Critical Policy Studies 18(1): 101–115.
RFI. 2015. Hollande’s ‘Historic’ Climate Deal is Hogwash, NGOs. 12 December. Accessed January 7, 2016. http://en.rfi.fr/general/20151212-hollandes-historic-climate-deal-hogwash-slam-ngos
Roelofs, Joan. 2003. Foundations and Public Policy. Albany: SUNY Press.
———. 2007. Foundations and Collaboration. Critical Sociology (no. 33): 479–504.
Rose, David. 2014. Exposed: How a Shadowy Network Funded by Foreign Millions Is Making Our Household Energy Bills Soar—For a Low-Carbon Britain. The Daily Mail, 25 October.
UNFCCC. 2015. Press Release—Historic Paris Agreement on Climate Change: 195 Nations Set Path to Keep Temperature Rise Well Below 2 Degrees. 12 December. http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/finale-cop21/
Voorhaar, Ria. 2015. Civil Society Responds as Final Paris Climate Agreement Released. 12 December. Accessed February 5, 2016. http://www.climatenetwork.org/press-release/civil-society-responds-final-paris-climate-agreement-released
White, Curtis. 2012. The Philanthropic Complex. Jacobin (6).
———. 2015. Philanthropy in the End Times: The State of Giving at the Impossible Intersection of Capitalism, Morality, and the Natural World. Lapham’s Quarterly 8(3): 210.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Morena, E. (2016). Introduction. In: The Price of Climate Action. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42484-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42484-2_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42483-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42484-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)