Funder Focus: Hazel Gillespie and the Petro-Canada Community Investment Program
February 2, 2004
By Nicole Zummach
This month in our Funder Focus, we feature the Petro-Canada Community
Investment Program, which each year provides support to fundamental
community issues such as poverty, family violence, and homelessness,
as well as health, education, and the arts. CharityVillage spoke with
program manager Hazel Gillespie about Petro-Canada's approach
to funding, the current trends in corporate philanthropy, and the challenges
of being a corporate funder.
CharityVillage: According to your web site, Petro-Canada's funding is focused primarily in the areas of education, and health and community services, with some additional funding going towards environment and the arts. Why did you decide to focus on education and health?
Hazel Gillespie: Actually, we put them forward as four equal
categories but the weighting varies from year to year. Because we are
Petro-Canada, a very Canadian company from coast to coast, we like to
reflect in our community investment program what is important to Canadians,
and all four of those funding categories are important to Canadians,
so it's kind of reflecting the Canadian mosaic. However, in 1996 we
had a top to bottom review of the program. We were finding that government
was off-loading an awful lot onto industry and we were overwhelmed with
a whole layer of new requests from folks we'd never heard from before.
So we had a review to see where we should focus.
In our review we discovered what we should have known all along - that
we were doing a lot of stuff around education but had never really packaged
it that way. That's when we developed our social vision theme, which
is 'developing Canadian talent, innovation, and expertise through education'.
So even though we have three other funding categories beyond education,
we've tried to thread that theme throughout all our funding. For example,
in arts and culture we don't tend to do main stage performances anymore.
We'll fund things that have an education component, like an apprenticeship
or a playwright development program.
CV: You don't refer to the nonprofits you fund as grant recipients,
but rather community partners. What sort of relationships do you try
to foster with the nonprofits you fund?
HG: I don't want it to be a misnomer because it is a bit loose,
but we use it because it starts us from a different mental place. Obviously,
with a small staff and spanning the whole country, we can't have everyone
in full partnership with us. We changed from corporate donations to
community investment partly because we felt that 'donations' had a bit
of a welfare connotation to it and we wanted it to be more of an equal
playing field. We want to feel that the charity is benefitting from
us, but we are also benefitting from the partnership. In total, holistically,
the partnership is something to celebrate. So even though we call them
community partners, for some of them there is not much more of a relationship
than 'here is the money'. Of course, we always want to talk to them
about how they are spending the money and that kind of thing.
In other cases, we have multiple layers to our partnership, which might
include employee involvement on our part, becoming involved in events,
and actually working very closely with the charity. For example, with
thINKFOOD we have spent enormous amounts of time working with them,
helping them to market the program. It's really a spectrum of activities
and our philosophy is one of partnership rather than just tossing money
at charities.
CV: In 2002, you invested $6.1 million in the community. What was your contribution for 2003?
HG: In terms of cash it was $5.5 million, the same as the previous
year, but on top of that there were several significant in-kind donations.
There was a $1.6 million donation to SAIT (Southern Alberta Institute
of Technology). We donated a plane to their aviation technology program.
There is also another very big in-kind donation, $7.1 million, that
will be announced next month, though the paperwork was completed in
2003. So our overall contribution for 2003 was more than $14 million.
It was a banner year for us.
CV: Your application process is now completely online. How do you anticipate this will benefit applicants and the program itself?
HG: It's the early days yet; we just went live with it a few
weeks ago. We've been working for the better part of a year with GrantStream
to develop it. GrantStream has a fabulous online software program, but
obviously there is tons of customization that needs to be done. What
I foresee happening is a lot of administrative efficiency for us because
it means that we are able to receive everything in a consistent format,
and because it is electronic we can fan it out to our different committees
rather than all this photocopying of hard copies, which is totally archaic
now. There is also the ability to generate reports and measurements
off this system. It becomes a common repository of information.
Some charities have said to me that the online
application limits them in how much they can tell us about themselves.
But quite often, frankly, we get telephone books worth of lots of glossy
stuff from charities. Then, on the other end of the spectrum, a small charity
that doesn't have the resources to do that, but which is doing equally good
work, is only able to send in a very minimal kind of proposal. This
levels the playing field. Everybody, then, is on the same level in terms
of the information they can send and I think that is a great equalizer.
We in the corporate sector say to charities, 'We don't want you to spend
any more than 8% of monies received on administration'. Yet, we all
ask them to send things in different ways. I mean, it's like 'do a tax
form, but do it 18 different ways'. This way we are consistent, and
I think as other companies get onto GrantStream, and as the charitable
sector becomes familiar with it, it's going to be easier in the end.
We are obviously going to accept hard copies for the duration of this
year and then try to make sure that everyone switches over. In rural
communities or perhaps Aboriginal communities where they might have
trouble doing it - though most schools and libraries have Internet access
- we will certainly make exceptions.
CV: Petro-Canada's next Report to Community is coming out in March. What are you finding in terms of your performance in the area of community investment?
HG: The report talks about many different things and community
investment is just one piece of the pie. In terms of high-level observations,
I'm seeing much more sophistication on the charities' side, but also
more sophistication for us internally in terms of how we approach partnerships
and the kinds of things we are looking for. I'm seeing a lot more integration
internally in terms of community investment becoming a tool that the
business groups are using to build stakeholder relations. So, it's not
some satellite operation that is handing out money on one side of the
company and no one else throughout the rest of the company knows what's
happening.
It's become much more strategic and business-driven, but I think in
the end that's more beneficial to communities because the money is being
invested to meet community needs in areas where we have an active presence.
What that allows us to do is to add the other layers of community investment,
the employee engagement and getting folks more involved. For example, if employees volunteer with a nonprofit for a minimum of four hours a month, then they will receive a $500 cheque made out to the organization.
What it means, of course, is that a number of charities aren't getting
money from us because they are in areas where we don't have an active
presence. On the flip side, where we are active, I think we are much
more sophisticated and strategic about the partnerships we are doing,
so those particular charities are benefitting.
CV: What are the greatest challenges for Petro-Canada as a corporate funder?
HG: I can think of a number of things. A big challenge is that
we can't be all things to all people and there are high expectations
out there. What's happening now is that there is so much competition
in the fundraising field - not that there hasn't always been, but it
seems to be escalating - and people tend to think of the same companies,
the collection of 'usual suspects'. We are the ones they think of first,
but to a large degree these companies are tapped out. It a good news,
bad news situation. The good news is that we have tons of community
partners across the country. The bad news is that we have tons of community
partners across the country. There is not a lot of flexibility to take
on more, and more, and more. What we need to do is expand that donor
base, and that's harder work obviously. There is a lot of money there
in small to midsize companies, and even among individual entrepreneurs.
It's harder to get to, but it has to happen. It's that long-term relationship
building and cultivation that fundraisers have to do to broaden this
donor base.
Another challenge is the fact that we are not in the business of charity.
It's hard to keep on top of community issues and really understand them
at a depth that would help us really tackle social issues. I think the
expectation is there that we would do that, but it's very difficult
because it's not our prime business. We're not in the area of social
services. There are a lot of well-minded charities out there, but they
often lack the resources to make things happen. So I think there needs
to be more mergers and synergies in the charitable sector around tackling
issues so that there aren't 16 of them trying to do the same thing on
different fronts.
CV: Some critics say that corporate social responsibility (CSR) is really just about public relations. How would you respond to these critics?
HG: Well, I think there is a lot of PR involved. I think community
investment is a tool to build stakeholder relations, but I don't see
that as a negative. Wherever companies are working throughout the country
or internationally, you need to have those relationships with people.
It benefits both them and us, so I don't see that as a negative at all.
One of the things about Petro-Canada, and one of the reasons I've stayed
here so long, is that it is a highly principled company. I think we
are right-minded and try to do the right things.
CV: What advice might you give to other corporations that are interested in expanding or starting a community investment program?
HG: I would say don't be afraid of it. I think a lot of companies might like to do it, but they don't know where to start and it is kind of overwhelming to them. Just start small. Find one charity, work with them, and build from there. We really need more people on board on the philanthropic bandwagon and I would encourage other companies to get involved. Everybody can take a piece of the action. If you are a small company you don't have to go at it like Petro-Canada, obviously. Do it in proportion to what is appropriate for your company. It takes a community to keep a community strong, so everyone needs to play a role, individuals and corporations. I just say, get out there and do something.
Hazel Gillespie has managed Petro-Canada's community investment program since 1989, and has been with the company for 25 years. For more information about the program,
visit www.petro-canada.ca.
