Elite networks for environmental philanthropy: shaping environmental agendas in the twenty-first century

Cunningham, Jeanine; Dreiling, Michael C.

doi:10.1080/23251042.2021.1942604

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This work has implications for both research and practice. In summary, this paper reinforces an argument that others have begun to make: philanthropic foundations have the potential to significantly impact environmental agendas (McCarthy 2004, Barker 2008, Mallin et al 2019, Cunningham and Dreiling 2021.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

“…To date, the area of research receiving the most attention concerns the ways foundations shape environmental movements (Brulle 2000, Faber and McCarthy 2005, Bartley 2007, Jenkins et al 2017, Brulle et al 2021) and embedded within that research are discussions about how foundations affect conservation agendas (Barker 2008, Tedesco 2015, Morena 2020. Some have argued that philanthropic foundations have the potential to significantly influence environmental agendas, and in so doing may preserve their privileged position in society (McCarthy 2004, Barker 2008, Mallin et al 2019, Cunningham and Dreiling 2021. Others have argued that foundation influence on these agendas is complex and warrants further research Tang 2007, 2008).…”

Section: Background: Philanthropic Agenda Setting and Packard's Inves...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others have argued that foundation influence on these agendas is complex and warrants further research Tang 2007, 2008). Although a handful of empirical studies have provided a macro-level analysis of the level and type of foundation influence on environmental agendas (Brulle and Jenkins 2005, Faber and McCarthy 2005, Brulle et al 2021, Cunningham and Dreiling 2021, few studies examine the process through which this occurs. One notable exception is Delfin and Tang's work (2008) on how the donor's approach and role of grantees in the process can be important mitigating factors for foundation influence, a finding confirmed by our research.…”

Section: Background: Philanthropic Agenda Setting and Packard's Inves...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We use the phrase conservation agenda to broadly refer to the overall trajectory of marine conservation and its importance in relation to other issues. It also refers to the specific priorities that comprise that agenda, from the national level to the agendas of individual organizations in Fiji and Palau (Brulle 2000, Jenkins et al 2017, Cunningham and Dreiling 2021. Conservation priorities refer to the objectives that are given importance and value, as well as what is being done in practice through research, action, and policy initiatives (Carwardine et al 2008, Wilson et al 2009, Pullin et al 2013.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We make two contributions with this work. First, we add to the small but growing body of empirical evidence that philanthropic foundations can have significant influence on conservation agendas (Brulle and Jenkins 2005, Barker 2008, Brulle 2014, Cunningham and Dreiling 2021. Our findings suggest that the growth in environmental philanthropy globally has the potential to translate into significant influence (positive and negative) on conservation agendas, and that diverse actors within the conservation field should be more engaged in observing and defining how this influence plays out in practice to ensure justice and equity, as well as accountability, in delivering on actions that https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss3/art2/ translate into meaningful outcomes for conservation and wellbeing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Who’s setting the agenda? Philanthropic donor influence in marine conservation

Enrici¹,

Gruby²,

Betsill³

et al. 2023

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We are in a period of unprecedented growth in conservation philanthropy. How will this influx of private funding affect conservation agendas? Inspired by a collaborative research co-design process, this paper addresses questions about how foundations influence conservation agendas in the places they work. We draw from a case study of the world's largest philanthropic funder of marine conservation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and their 20 years of investment in marine conservation in Palau and Fiji. Conservation practitioners in both countries universally agreed that the Packard Foundation had a significant and positive influence on the agenda, which they attribute to both how the foundation worked and what they chose to fund. Specifically, our study reveals how the Packard Foundation shaped conservation agendas in Palau and Fiji in partnership with its grantees through a grant-making process characterized by relationship building, collaborative decision making, convening and promoting of collective action, flexibility, and long-term funding. Packard's approach was often identified as unique, and contrasted with numerous other donors, including foundations and other types of donors, who use a more top-down approach. By describing a relative success story in how philanthropic foundations can work with conservation practitioners to co-design a shared conservation agenda, our work provides timely guidance for donors and practitioners.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%