Report seeks more corporate transparency

“THERE are currently no disclosure standards for Australian companies’ charitable spending’” said a spokesperson for the Australia Institute when recently releasing a report titled “Bringing transparency to corporate charity.”

“This means claims of corporate giving are hard to verify and frequently dubious.”

The report, which called for clear and consistent disclosure standards that would help investors, consumers, and the public make more informed decisions, gave numerous examples of dubious claims by large corporations about their, so called, charitable donations.

The report explained that some companies appear to count charitable donations from their staff and customers towards their own community contributions.

One example provided was of the $88 million in “contributions” that Wesfarmers made in 2024, $66 million consisted of “indirect contributions”, “facilitated by our divisions from our customers and team members”, apparently referring to money paid by customers, not the company, including the money raised by not-for-profits from “Bunnings barbeques” on weekends.

“Companies report $1,775 million in community contributions,” said the report.

“When the $905 million in identified dubious contributions and $204 million in unitemised contributions are excluded, what remains is just $665 million, or less than half of the original sum identified as community contributions.”

But this, according to the report, even that figure may be an over-statement of corporate philanthropy because it relies on identifying and excluding dubious contributions and since reporting is inconsistent, companies may claim contributions that are dubious, but do not appear to be so.

“If a mate claimed they were very generous because they convinced someone else to give to charity, you’d think they were joking,” said Bill Browne, director of the Australia Institute’s democracy and accountability program.

“But that’s the kind of thing companies say in their corporate reporting,”

Other examples given in the report of companies attempting to exaggerate their corporate generosity, were:

-Banks claiming the fees they waive to some customers as part of their corporate giving.

-Westpac providing “just a tiny fraction” of the funding for the beach rescue helicopters that carry its name and logo, but counting sponsorships against its overall “community investment” figures.

-Woolworths referring to support worth $143 million as “direct community contribution” even though only $15 million consisted of financial support donated by the company, while $81 million was donated surplus food, which would otherwise probably have been dumped.

The report suggested that:

“A clear, unified standard for corporate philanthropic donations would list direct charitable donations and activities separately from other contributions,” which would allow investors, consumers, and the general public to compare and evaluate companies, allowing them to make more informed decisions in their investments, consumption and voting.

By John WATTS