Giving Compass' Take:

• Krystian Seibert argues that the criticisms of Notre-Dame donors offers an opportunity for these big donors - and others - to reconsider their philanthropic undertakings. 

• Where are your philanthropic dollars going? Could they do more good elsewhere? 

• Read a framework for impactful philanthropy. 

When French billionaires Francois-Henri Pinault and Bernard Arnault tried to outbid each other with pledges in the hundreds of millions of euros to fund the rebuilding of Notre-Dame, they probably expected to receive a wave of gratitude.

Instead they have largely copped a mountain of criticism. People have wondered why they can be so quick to pledge funds to rebuild a cathedral when there are so many other unmet needs in France. According to one estimate, there are 140,000 homeless people in France, of which 30,000 are children. Why didn’t this figure spur Pinault and Arnault into a philanthropic bidding war, when a burnt down cathedral roof did?

This sort of question is a good one to ask. Philanthropy around the world, by and large, is a transformative force for good. It can be an essential source of “risk capital” for the social and environmental innovation that others won’t fund.

But at the same time it is also an exercise of power by people with wealth. In the words of Rob Reich, a Stanford professor and author of a new book about philanthropy called Just Giving, "In a democracy, power deserves scrutiny not just gratitude."

When it comes to philanthropy, there are valid questions to be asked not just about the good deeds that some people of wealth do with one hand, but how they make money with their other hand. Such scrutiny can lead to better alignment between the two, to address the concern that making money through questionable business practices can involve "taking" and philanthropy is a form of "giving back".

If philanthropy responds thoughtfully to the scrutiny it receives, then it will retain what’s referred to as a social licence. This means that the broader community will view philanthropy, and individual philanthropists, as legitimate. And given that philanthropy is intended to be a force for good in our society, retaining such legitimacy is essential.

What we’ve seen since the Notre-Dame fire is that people are questioning the social licence of the French billionaires who have pledged to fund its rebuilding. This provides an opportunity to redefine how big philanthropy operates.

Read the full article about the backlash against Notre-Dame donors by Krystian Seibert at The Sydney Morning Harold.