The Road not Followed?

The world looks to the nonprofit sector as the caring, nurturing sector of the economy.  We think of ourselves in that way, as well.  But honestly, we do not have a lock on those descriptors.  While there are many nonprofits that, regardless of their mission, do truly embrace, and live, a caring nurturing mantra for their clients, employees, volunteers, communities, and the world, there are for-profits that do so as well.  And there are certainly many nonprofits and for-profits where ideas such as caring, compassion, kindness are never discussed, let alone lived.

All of that said, however, I do believe that there is a spoken—“Of course nonprofit employees don’t expect to be paid a decent wage; they work for doing good, not a pay check”—and unspoken expectation that nonprofits will live by a strong(er) moral order and code, where equity, fairness and inclusivity dominate and clear distinctions between right and wrong are noted and abided.  But do we really and fully?  Or, do we pick and choose how and when.

For example, how many scandals that stem from illegal activity happen at nonprofits about which the world—including donors–never knows?  Too many!  (And yes, the same question can be asked of for-profits, and answered similarly.  But sadly, society’s expectations, as noted above, seem to differ for the two sectors).

While your mind may have immediately raced to the abuse scandals of the Catholic Church, I’m thinking of many more examples:  sexual harassment that leads to a dismissal but not a criminal prosecution; embezzlement that leads to a termination and an effort to recoup the stolen assets, but not a criminal prosecution; the theft of organizational property that leads to a firing but no criminal prosecution.  Making these situations even worse is the fact that when called for a reference, many organizations will not reveal the wrongdoing, advised by attorneys to simply acknowledge that the person was an employee from time A to time B.

Thus, unless the terminated employee decides to tell his/her story, the nonprofit never need reveal to the general public the wrongdoing that took place within its organization.  But, by failing to call the wrongdoing what it really was—a criminal act—and prosecuting accordingly, is the organization condoning such illegal activity?  Is silence, in this case, condoning?  By possibly allowing this alleged criminal to find a new place of employment and repeat the criminal activity, is the nonprofit complicit in the wrongdoing?  Has the moral compass of these organizations gone amuck?  Or should we expect nothing other, as organizations’ responsibility are to themselves and their immediate clients and not to teaching lessons to the larger community and taking moral stands?

So, is there a moral stand on this?  Do we, as the expected protector of decency, good and community well-being, have a moral obligation to invest only in socially responsible companies and to accept donations only from socially responsible organizations and individuals?  Is our job, as a board of a nonprofit, to maximize the return on our investments even if we invest in a company not included on the Domini Index of social investments, for example?  Or, is it our job to balance that desired return on our investments with attention to the product, work conditions, employee practices, etc., of the companies in which we are investing?   Should a youth-serving organization invest in Pepsi and Coke or accept grant or sponsorship money from them? Should an organization serving ex-cons invest in Smith and Wesson, a company with a 52 week low and high of $3.75 – $6.98, respectively?  (This provides a very accessible entre into the stock market for many small nonprofits, and quite a nice return if bought and sold at the right time in that 52 week period.)  Do we as nonprofits have a moral responsibility to sacrifice return for cause?

Recently, it was announced that Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter’s program to provide a $10,000 tax credit to businesses that hire ex-cons was a failure as no businesses signed up.  Do we, as nonprofits, the sector that is expected to champion the underdog, have a responsibility to lead the way—meaning no incentives needed—in hiring those with checkered pasts?  Do we have a moral responsibility to give people a second chance—even if that isn’t what our mission is directly about?

I end where I started, for I do not have an answer on this.  Which road do we take?  There’s the low road of minimum standards of compliance, the high road of moral integrity, or a hybrid of the two — that leads us to where?