Social Enterprise, Talk about the good work being done by organizations that use their profits to further social and environmental missions.

25875 Followers

Follow Justmeans editorial on:

Share this on:

Goldman Sachs' Charity Bonus: A Good Idea?

Marcia Stepanek | Monday 11th January 2010

The word on Wall Street is that Goldman Sachs -- to soften criticism over the size of its bonuses this year -- is thinking about expanding a program that would require its executives and top managers to give a set percentage of their earnings to charity.

Goldman is expected to report later this month a record profit of more than $12 billion for 2009, up from $11.7 billion in 2007. According to The New York Times, the details over the charity requirement are still under discussion, but it would probably mean that Goldman's top guns would be required to give hundreds of millions of dollars to charity. It was not immediately clear whether a new department would need to be created to administer the mandated giving.

In recent days, some in the giving sector have suggested the following: that any talk of mandatory charity is "a little creepy" (Daniel Indiviglio in The Atlantic); that giving to good causes "doesn't rack up karma points if you didn't think to do it yourself" (GOOD's Morgan Clendaniel), and that Goldman might consider using some of its enormous profits, instead, to establish some type of new social enterprise or next-phase microfinancing arm to move from a mindset of charity to one of social innovation (yours truly).

What do you think? Should there be a charity requirement? If not, why not? And rather than contribute millions to various charities, might Goldman use that money in another way to help those in need?

Let us hear from you.

Other Great Categories

Other Social Enterprise Articles

Help!! How can we improve sustainability reporting?

Social Media and Stakeholder Engagement: Justmeans Conference

The New Normal

Action Trumps Analysis: The Role of Entrepreneurial Learning in Today's World

A failure to communicate, and a new opportunity

elizabeth neumaier 13 January 2010

Be nice if performance on Wallstreet was not only gauged by the dollar, but by what they build and contribute. Sadly, most are just too far removed from reality to care. Besides many can opt in to make donations part of their contracts. But forcing a charity bonus to cover "their sins" is an insult to the spirit of giving. I think simply Goldman should reward people (at all levels) who already give, with a giving bonus matching program and recognition.

Ross Powell 13 January 2010

I believe that any monies "give up" so willingly should go towards funding a television station that tells the truth about how we are no longer a democratic society. A program that shows via clips of House and Senate hearings that Congress (the boy's club) has little interest in the average American. A program that promotes individual and group actions to REALLY get our country back from these Congressional thieves and assorted whores to Wall Street bankers.

Gloria Picchetti 13 January 2010

Main Street already has charities that have been neglected for several years because of what Wall ST did. You want us to again trust Wall ST? Out of the question.

charlie welcome 12 January 2010

Its a good start. I don't think that the execs for Goldman Sachs should be getting bonuses in the first place. Bonuses are meant to be given to people to reward GOOD work, but Goldman Sachs wouldn't exist anymore save for an unprecedented government bailout. I think instead of giving Goldman Sachs' executives bonuses, they should use the money to pay back the government. But the fact of the matter is they are getting the bonuses. I think that giving part of the money to charity is a good way to start changing the culture on Wall St. An article I read brings up a lot of good points on this issue. Check it out here:

http://jm.ly/sSjRwu

Elaine Cohen 12 January 2010

i do not think that ecexs should be required to give their bonuses to charity. I believe execs should be fairly rewarded for their work, with ample but far more modest pay levels and bonuses than has been prevalent in some companies. What execs do with their money should be a matter for personal decision, though of course, the Company may encourage contribution to a corporately sponsored fund or cause. If Goldman Sachs believes its execs are getting too much money, they should revise their remuneration policy across the board (and the Board). Mandated giving is the wrong solution to the wrong problem. The problem is not the size of the bonus. The problem is ethics, integrity and accountability. Fix that, and you wont need to come with creative solutions to issues that shouldnt have beeen created in the first place. And as for doing more to support/finance social innovation, of course this is a more sustainable solution for all of their excess cash.

Jeff Mowatt 12 January 2010

Marcia,

The mention of social innovation raises a thought about the SIF, which as I understand it, will be distributed to foundations who can match the $5 minimum funding. Public funds matched by private donations.

Instead, how about business which are forward thinking and socially responsible making contribution to the SIF or equivalent. Public funds matched by business and deployed directly to grassroots orgs. The fund being under the oversight of civic leaders.

This in essence was what was suggested to US Gov back in 2006 with a microeconomic 'Marshall Plan' overseas.

http://jm.ly/FDJT1k

It starts by identifying the problems and potential solutions. For example affordable broadband access for all with any profit re-invested on other social outcomes Access to information being both necessary for enterprise development and fostering democracy.

http://jm.ly/PoQbb8

Jeff

Dennis Paul 11 January 2010

I love your idea Marcia. I think banks should be involved more than just writing a check. They should involve themselves in social innovation. Its a debatable topic that they are the smartest people on the street, if so, prove it!