Having worked in the commercial, market and voluntary sectors I concur with George Monbiot (Opinion, 24 May) and Carl Rhodes and Peter Bloom (The trouble with charitable billionaires, The long read, 24 May). Limited liability profits only the affluent. Seeking funding from Comic Relief to major companies for those serving local communities was almost pointless. The needs of impoverished young people in the UK do not have the clout of a global campaign for inoculations or mosquito nets. This is no way diminishes the need for sexual health education, early years education or access to adequate nutrition.
Philanthrocapitalism is a new term for me, but “outcomes” by which the efficacy of any grants might be granted are familiar. Huge corporations and their CEOs can determine how, and to whom, they may donate regardless of identified need. Fifty-one of the largest economies in the world are corporations. Their accountability is to shareholders only. Until global and lesser corporations are held accountable for the wellbeing of their workers, their communities and our environment, poverty, ill-health and poor education will result in the impoverishment of what could become a truly global society. I suggest that “philanthrocapitalism” be formally diagnosed as an aberrant condition.
Victoria Smillie
Norwich
• Carl Rhodes and Peter Bloom correctly point out that the adoption of a code of conduct by the Chemical Manufacturers’ Association after the Bhopal poison gas disaster was corporate self-interest rather than generosity. Those responsible, the Union Carbide Corporation and its successor the Dow Chemical Company consistently denied responsibility. They have still not detoxified the site 33 years later. This is still damaging the health of local people. It remains to be seen whether DowDuPont (after yet another merger) will salvage its reputation by acknowledging the principles of “successor liability” and “the polluter pays (and cleans up)”.
Martin Wright
Restorative Action for Bhopal
• Thank you, George Monbiot, for suggesting an escrow account for a proportion of executive pay, forfeited should the business fail a series of social and environmental targets. After all, those same executives seem to feel that it is fair game to forfeit a large part of their employees’ pensions. Why not have escrow accounts for all pension funds, the contents of which belong entirely to the employees and should be locked away out of reach of the sort of corporate greed we’ve witnessed at Carillion? They could be managed by an independent organisation funded by the savings made by the Pension Protection Fund, which would no longer be exposed to future Carillions.
Virginia Strauss
Ferndown, Dorset
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
