How can you build trust and credibility with human rights grantees?

In my opinion the main problem is the power dynamics in philanthropy, where those that provide (funding or non financial support) have all the power in decision making. Grantees play the weak role and are normally not empowered enough to raise their voice and say what they many times would love to say. They are dependent and prefer not to raise uncomfortable issues. We urgently need to change minds and shift the power, or distribute it among all stakeholders of an impact value chain. Shift from a donor-driven mindset to an accurate data-driven one.

Within the framework of the most robust strategies of socially responsible investment (SRI), I would highlight the engagement or direct involvement of investors in the projects. In some cases, this involvement is based on proactive communication, but also on the presence with voice and vote in the projects' governing bodies. This makes it possible to monitor performance in environmental, social and corporate governance terms (ESG). An excellent example of engagement strategies is that of the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, which excluded the giant Wal Mart from its investment fund for labor abuses.

In my opinion accountability should work in all directions. Grantees go through too many due diligence processes and spend too much time building reports to gain trust. However, they are not so accountable to other stakeholders such as beneficiaries. Transparency should improve to be accountable to every participant of an impact project. Funders should also improve accountability towards grantees. However, grantees are not demanding this yo happen (because of their dependency). To build trust I believe the solution is not more paperwork but to distribute power and ensure everyone feels part of a same strategy and goals, no matter which role you play.

It's essential to recognize that funders hold a position of power, which can sometimes make it daunting for grantees to provide candid feedback. To overcome this challenge, it's crucial to create a safe space for open dialogue. Offering the option of anonymous feedback can encourage more honest responses. Transparency in our decision-making processes and a commitment to not withdraw funding based on feedback are key. Additionally, being open about our own organization's mistakes sets a positive example. It's also essential to be culturally sensitive, understanding that feedback may be expressed differently across cultures. Regular check-ins and structured feedback mechanisms can help maintain a continuous feedback loop.