The backlash Bezos: is "great philanthropy" a charade?

American industrialist Andrew Carnegie is quoted as saying that "great fortunes are great blessings for a community".

There is no doubt that the beneficiaries of billionaire Jeff Bezos' new philanthropic fund will agree.

The richest man in the world announced Thursday that he would give $ 2 billion (1.5 billion pounds sterling) of his fortune to finance a network of preschools and fight against homelessness in America.

But far from being universally applauded, the commitment of the founder of Amazon has been sharply criticized.

James Bloodworth, a writer who went undercover to expose the working conditions in the company's distribution centers, said that there was "something ironic" in the plan of Mr. Bezos.

"There have been credible reports that workers in the Amazon warehouses slept outside in tents because they can not afford to rent houses with the wages that the company pays them," he said. he told the BBC.

"Jeff Bezos can boast of being a great philanthropist, but that will not absolve him of his responsibility if Amazonian workers continue to be afraid to take breaks and days off. leave because they fear disciplinary action at work. "

The accusations of hypocrisy have flocked to social media, and many have pointed to Amazon's efforts to reduce its tax bill in the United States and abroad.

Others have pointed out that Amazon's recent successful attempt to cancel a law in Seattle – the home of the online retailer's headquarters – had been designed to raise millions of dollars to alleviate the crisis of the free. -abrism in the city.

For his part, Bezos, whose value exceeds $ 150 billion, did little to dissociate his philanthropic efforts from the economic model of his company.

"We will use the same set of principles that led Amazon," he said in a statement announcing his fund.

"The most important of them will be a real customer obsession.

"The child will be the client."

Carnegie's legacy

Yet the idea that business titans should apply the principles of their conference rooms to the public domain is hardly new.

It was first introduced by Andrew Carnegie in 1899, in an essay entitled The Gospel of Wealth.

The tycoon – himself once the richest man in the world – described what he saw as the moral duty of the super rich: "to consider all the surplus income that he simply owes as trust funds, that he is called to administer ".

The businessmen, according to Mr. Carnegie, were best placed to do this administration.

"The man of wealth thus becoming the sole agent and custodian of his poorest brethren," he writes, "bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to act for himself."

At the time of his death in 1919, it was estimated that Mr. Carnegie was 90% separated from his fortune to finance scientific research, pay teachers, build schools and create more than 2,000 public libraries.

His doctrine became the template for donations from colleagues, including John D Rockefeller, who saw no conflict between their business approach – in which they built monopolies and crushed unions – and their philanthropic work.

It is a model that has paved the way for the modern benefits of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Mark Zuckerberg – whose charitable causes are different from the way they run their businesses.

At the annual meeting of his cabinet, Berkshire Hathaway, Mr. Buffett could not have been clearer.

"I do not believe in the imposition of my political views on the activities of our businesses," he told shareholders gathered to know if he would divest gun makers. .

"Do not put a band-aid on cancer"

But according to Anand Giridharadas, Carnegie's approach has helped to create mass inequalities.

Mr. Giridharadas, whose book Winners Take All addresses the so-called "charade" of modern philanthropy, characterizes Carnegie's approach as "an extreme catch followed by an extreme gift".

The super-rich, he argues, stop "transforming the system they are on."

Although Mr. Bezos' gift is admirable, it does not address the "deep and complex causes" of homelessness and poverty in the United States – including Amazon, because the company has benefited from the new world of precarious employment.

According to him, a good slogan for Mr. Bezos would be: "Do not ask what you can do for your country, ask what you have already done to your country".

The approaches taken by the super rich, says Giridharadas, are less daring than the companies they helped create.

"If you want to get into public policy, you have a moral responsibility not to put a band-aid on cancer," he says, adding that Bezos could instead influence policies.

He could do this by fighting for a change in the law regarding corporate responsibilities to shareholders, and ultimately – paving the way for corporate structures that sacrifice certain benefits to the pursuit of social good.

Matt Kilcoyne, of the Adam Smith Institute free market think tank, does not agree.

"Frankly, the biggest philanthropic act of Bezos is Amazon itself," he argues.

"Lower prices, more choice and increased competition have generated billions for Bezos and billions for the hundreds of millions of customers it serves."

Moreover, Mr. Kilcoyne rejects any discussion of the moral responsibility of the super rich to give in a certain way.

"Jeff Bezos has the right to spend his own money as he pleases.

"The armchair commentators might like to say that they know better than Bezos how he should spend his money, but they'd better try to convince him of their philanthropic cause rather than reprimand him for his choice." . "