Editorial | Public shaming of voluntary sector not on

Malta Developers Association President Michael Stivala claimed in an interview that NGOs were accepting money from certain businesses in support of campaigns against their competitors.

Stivala did not provide proof for his allegations, which he had already repeated late last year.

Several environmental NGOs came out denying the claims, asking Stivala to back them up or withdraw them.

The Voluntary Organisations Commissioner also asked Stivala to substantiate the allegations given his duty to safeguard the voluntary sector from claims that tarnish its credibility.

The Commissioner also confirmed that the eNGOs that had signed the statement denying the claims were all compliant with the Office of the Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations.

Stivala should not have made those spurious claims if he has no proof, or at the very least information that can shed light on why he is making the allegations.

It is obvious that Stivala will never name any competitor that would have engaged in such a practice. He will not get into a battle with fellow entrepreneurs and developers and so the easiest thing for him to do is take it out on the NGOs.

Within this context, it is clear that Stivala’s only intention was to tarnish the credibility of the organisations by implicating them in something he has not provided any shred of evidence for.

But what Stivala implied requires reflection. It is not illegal for a business organisation to fund an NGO, or financially back a particular campaign. Neither is it illegal for NGOs to accept or even seek funding for their campaigns, especially when these involve expensive appeal procedures in tribunals and courts.

As long as the funds are above board, registered and declared, business organisations and NGOs have nothing to be ashamed of. The operative word here is transparency, something which NGOs are obliged to uphold by the VO Commissioner.

If Stivala knows of instances where NGOs accepted funds without declaring them, he should pass this information to the VO Commissioner for further investigation.

The situation gets a bit more complicated when NGOs resort to crowd funding using online platforms, where donors can remain anonymous. But a business organisation is unlikely to adopt such a funding route for a cause it believes benefits its interests.

Perhaps clearer rules should be introduced to regulate this form of funding, although if donors are unknown, they can hardly influence how an NGO acts.

But there is a second level of concern, which is of a more ethical nature. NGOs campaigning on an environmental platform against a certain development would undoubtedly put their credibility at stake if they accept money from a business competitor and keeping their mouths shut if the donor is then involved in a similar project.

There should be minimal rules if at all governing the ethical aspect linked to the source of funds because any such regulations could be an intrusion into the work of the NGOs. In the ethical realm it is the court of public opinion that will determine whether those NGOs acted correctly or not.

Stivala would have been right to criticise NGOs and call them out for acting unethically for accepting funds from business competitors if this was truly the case. The organisations would then have to publicly explain their stand and it would be up to the people to pass judgement on their credibility.

However, no such circumstance has been flagged so far and all we are left with is public shaming of the voluntary sector in a bid to score a few cheap points.

While environmental organisations may at times be perceived as stifling development and economic growth when opposing infrastructure and building projects, they nonetheless are an important part of the country’s conscience.