A report released by Upstart Co-Lab outlines how institutions can align their investments with their missions.
by Valentina Di Liscia
The Louvre Museum in Paris. (photo by Pedro
Szekely via Flickr)
Since 2018, the Louvre Museum in Paris has
allocated five percent of its €250 million (~$301 million) endowment to
socially-responsible investments, including artisan and traditional craft, cultural
tourism, and cultural heritage. It’s one example of how an institution with a
sizable endowment — a pool of money whose principal is reinvested to yield an
income — can grow its own assets while benefiting the greater good.
In financial parlance, the practice is known
as “impact investing”: making investments to generate positive social or
environmental change, in addition to financial returns. And while some
institutions like the Louvre are already doing so, a new guide released by
Upstart Co-Lab, a think tank of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, argues that
impact investing could be much more widespread in the US, where museums hold
more than $40 billion in their combined endowments.
The appeal of impact investment comes as
museums grapple with increased scrutiny into their funding sources. Recent
incidents, such as the resignation of former tear gas manufacturer Warren
Kanders from the Whitney Museum’s board, have shone a light on the tension
between institutions’ progressive-leaning programming and exhibitions and the
origins of their patrons’ wealth. The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the
American Museum of Natural History have vowed to suspend accepting gifts from
members of the Sackler family because of their ties to Purdue Pharma, the pharmaceutical
company that helped create the opioid epidemic.
Through “negative screening,” institutions can exclude companies
for potential investment that are not aligned with an institution’s values or
show deficiencies in their environmental, social, and governance practices.
Instead, the report suggests, they could opt to invest in businesses like
ethical fashion or sustainable food, or even real estate projects that are
affordable and target the creative economy, like artist studios.
For example, the Souls Grown Deep Foundation in Atlanta, which
holds the largest collection of works by African American artists from the
Southeast, invests in a socially responsible fintech fund that provides access
to capital for women and BIPOC entrepreneurs. Last year, the foundation adopted
a 100% for-impact investing policy.
The report notes that only 2.7% of venture capital goes to women
founders, and just 2.4% to Black and Latinx founders. As demands for racial
justice grow louder across the country and museums boast ambitious Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) platforms, impact investing may be one way to put
their money where their mouth is, so to speak.
The subject of museum endowments has been a sensitive one since the
start of the pandemic. As major institutions such as the Guggenheim in New York
City slashed staff in an effort to balance the financial losses of
virus-related shutdowns, many wondered why museums could not instead dip into
endowments to keep workers employed, some in the hundreds of millions. The
Museum of Modern Art, with an endowment of over $1 billion, terminated all
freelance educator contracts, prompting outrage in a sector of the industry
already worn down by precarious employment and low wages.
In a counterexample, the Los Angeles Philharmonic announced in May
that it would draw $20.6 million from its endowment to help close an $80
million budget gap.
The reasons why an institution may choose not to touch its
endowment principal are myriad, but they often boil down to one inherent
paradox: endowment funds are primarily made to be invested, not spent. The
donors who contribute to these funds largely control how they are invested and
when they can be drawn on for operational purposes, as do state restrictions.
“There are regulations that govern spending from endowments: the
Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act requires investing and
spending at a rate that will preserve the purchasing power of the principal
over the long term,” Laura Callanan, Founding Partner of Upstart, told
Hyperallergic.
Patrons’ focus on financial growth often contributes to their
hesitation around impact investing. When conversations around aligning its
endowment portfolio with its mission begun in 2014 at the Brooklyn Museum, some
board members expressed concern.
“While the idea of impact investing made sense in theory, we knew
it would take some time for those historically focused primarily on financial
returns to come on side,” said David Berliner, President and COO of the
Brooklyn Museum, according to Upstart Co-Lab’s report. The board, it notes, has
since “committed to a deeper exploration.”
Upstart Co-Lab aims to dispel the myth that more socially-conscious
investments translate to an economic sacrifice; in fact, they can be lucrative.
Since the California Institute of the Arts (CalArts) committed to divesting
from fossil fuels in 2015, it reports investment gains of $700,000 from 2016 to
2020.
Some case studies cited by Upstart Co-Lab’s
report merit further analysis. Part of CalArts’s shift toward environmentally
conscious investments included reinvesting in an ex-Fossil Fuel Fund developed
by BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager. But although BlackRock may be
committed to climate sustainability, the company is the second-largest investor
in two major private prison companies. Competing social interests — in this
case, the prospect of a greener future versus prison profiteering — may pose
complex ethical conundrums for institutions.
Still, impact investing may be a start to holding museums
accountable. As activists rightly question the presence of certain individuals
on boards and denounce dubious sponsorships, it is a timely moment to apply the
same criteria to a museum’s investments. “Should the endowments of America’s
greatest cultural institutions be invested in opioids, weapons, fossil fuels
and activities inconsistent with organizational mission and values?” asks
Upstart Co-Lab. The report’s takeaway is a resounding “no.”
https://hyperallergic.com/604770/can-museums-use-their-endowments-to-support-the-greater-good/?utm_campaign=Daily&utm_content=20201203&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Hyperallergic%20Newsletter
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario