I’m pleased to see general enthusiasm for the deal, with less of the obvious carping about it all being a face-saving or reputation-growing gesture than you might expect. Claims of self-aggrandizement are neatly sidestepped by the fact that Buffet has eschewed establishing his own foundation in favour of giving to Gates, ensuring the minimum credit once memories of the contribution fade.

The complexities of the deal have, in most cases, slipped through the media net. They don’t really matter, except to note that it’s not money Buffet has given, but shares - rather, a promise of a certain number of shares in Buffet’s empire, Berkshire Hathaway, each year. In fact, the number decreases every year, with the expected increase in BH’s value intended to make up the difference.

The implications of this “new golden age of philanthropy” for consumers are substantial. Ethical consuming has, until now, been focussed on damage control - on choosing the least-worst option, be it less harmful farming, better wages for manufacturers and farmers, or minimising packaging. Now, is there a chance for a more positive, charity-based ethical consumer movement?

For some time I’ve objected to the smugness of Macintosh users. Tales of Microsoft’s aggressive pursuit of patents and squeezing-out of rivals have just increased the sense that Macs are ethically, as well as aesthetically, better than Windows PCs. And the open-source movement, from Mozilla to Linux, has always portrayed Microsoft as the bad guy. But there’s a problem. Bill Gates still owns the lion’s share of Microsoft stock; money made by Microsoft is money made by him, and that means money that goes to the Foundation. The same, now, can be said of Berkshire Hathaway’s range of financial products. Indeed, because it’s the shares of BH that the Foundation will own, it’s a direct boost to the Foundation if the shares value rises. So essentially, Microsoft and Berkshire Hathaway products are now like a promotional chocolate bar or newspaper - a portion of the profits goes to help the world’s poorest people.

Is this, as it sounds, too good to be true? There are obviously questions over the sheer power the Foundation will have over AIDS policy, and the criticisms currently coming from the anti-abortion lobby are probably just the beginning. It will take careful PR strategy for Gates and Buffett to maintain their current halo. And the ethical spending of fortunes doesn’t take away concerns about the inequity illustrated by the existence of those fortunes, or - in Microsoft’s case - widespread concern about the business tactics that helped amass them. Nevertheless, the new philanthropy is to be welcomed.

No comments | RSS Feed for comments on this post

Email post to friend | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Share on Facebook