The Traditional Anthropocentric Paradigm of Philanthropy is Impeding Support for Environmental and Animal Welfare Causes

The Traditional Anthropocentric Paradigm of Philanthropy is Impeding Support for Environmental and Animal Welfare Causes

Anyone who knows me knows that my two favorite clients to work with are animal and environment-focused nonprofits. But I also know the particular challenges these organizations face.

I still remember a younger, and more naïve version of myself standing on Montreal’s famous Sainte-Catherine street in 2013 asking people to help end animal cruelty.

“Would you sign this petition against puppy mills?”

"How could you be helping animals when children are suffering in war zones around the world? " The man spat in my face, before literally spitting at my feet.

I still think back on this when I work in what I have come to call the “non-human” philanthropy space, knowing that many people still feel this way in Canada, and around the world.

How can our anthropocentric Western philanthropy support the defense of animals and the environment? It can’t, it must become more conscious of the interconnection between the human and non-human world.

Can Philanthropy be ‘Non-Human’?

Philanthropy is by definition very “human”. All you have to do is look at its Latin roots: 

Phil = Love and Anthropos = Humans. 

Still, we found 1069 animal welfare and 500 environmental charities registered with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in 2024. What are these organizations doing? Among them, we find animal shelters and rescues, ecosystem conservation groups, animal rights activists, and organizations defending our natural resources or fighting for animal and eco-justice.

While included in the charitable sector, "non-human" nonprofits stand apart, fenced in by a specific set of hurdles that limit their growth. These all arise from the human-focused view that defines Western philanthropy.

These challenges encompass the complex legal rules controlling charities in Canada, the essential role of political advocacy to fulfill their mission, and the perceived tension between non-human and human interests.

How can we reform today's philanthropy to better portray the interconnectedness that defines our world?

Modernizing Charitable Laws

Canadian charitable law, a reflection of society’s priorities, leaves little room for non-human philanthropy, whether for animals or entire ecosystems.

The CRA’s definition of charitable purpose hasn’t significantly changed since 1891 when Lord Macnaghten described the four categories of charitable acts: the relief of poverty, the advancement of education and religion, and other purposes beneficial to the community. 

Environmental and animal welfare organizations often fall under that last one-size-fits-all category. For example, animal shelters can register as charities under the promotion of the moral and ethical development of the community sub-category, since "the courts have determined that promoting the welfare of animals provides an intangible moral benefit to humanity in general." 

Basically, charities have to demonstrate the impact on humans to be considered charitable. 

Canadian charitable law has historically left little room for non-human philanthropy, whether for animals or entire ecosystems. However, as the animal and environmental movements gain in popularity, the pressure on our archaic charitable sector to evolve increases. Continuing to push for a modernization of the laws that govern the Canadian charitable sector is one way to better support non-human philanthropy.

Funding for Advocacy is Crucial for Non-Human Philanthropy

One of the allowed charitable purposes in Canada is "upholding the administration and enforcement of the law." 

But what to do when the laws hinder you from achieving your mission? You start advocacy work.

From lobbying for stricter animal cruelty or anti-pollution laws, advocacy work is crucial for many non-human philanthropy organizations.

Before the revision of Canadian charity law in 2018, charities were forbidden from engaging in most advocacy work. Many environmental charities were even stripped of their charitable status due to their political advocacy. This meant many of these organizations could not be recognized as charities, not give out tax receipts for donations nor apply for funding from philanthropic foundations. This greatly limited their funding opportunities.

Six years after the abolition of limits on political activities, the advocacy revolution that was expected fell short. According to a recent article, philanthropic funders are still very “old-school” and have not necessarily evolved their mindsets on advocacy.

While organizations can now register as charities and give out tax receipts for donations, the lack of philanthropic funding for advocacy limits the possibility for non-human philanthropic organizations to reach the same heights as their human-focused counterparts.

Shifting towards Interconnection

While the man who spat at me obviously thought defending animals came into conflict with saving children, I would argue that this is not the case. 

Animal rights groups persistently challenge lawful economic practices, such as the skinning of animals for fur, large-scale agriculture, and circus performances, in pursuit of their cause. Animal rescue centers frequently intervene, rescuing maltreated animals from breeders or puppy mills, thus initiating disputes over the individual's "property" rights and those of the animals. 

Along the same lines, environmental groups’ efforts often clash with enterprises pillaging natural resources, imposing restraints on exploitative activities to safeguard a region. The overarching goal of climate change activism is to curtail and govern human actions, from imposing carbon taxes to mandating corporate recycling programs. 

When we look at it from this perspective, we may get the impression that non-human philanthropy is at odds with individual human liberties and the capitalist, neo-liberal structure of our society. 

However, this is a very superficial perspective, one that ignores the baseline of these actions, one that any human rights advocate would agree with: ending exploitation.

These causes focus on ending exploitative practices and caring for the most vulnerable, a philosophy endorsed by many human-focused charities. Advocating for the end of exploitative behavior, whether of animals or our natural world, is directly connected to the end of human exploitation. Carol J. Adams makes the case for the shared oppression and objectification of animals and women by the patriarchal system in her book, The Sexual Politics of Meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory. Arguments have also been made for the interconnectedness of environmentalism and human rights, with concepts like environmental equity and justice gaining popularity, where access to a healthy environment is a right for all.

Evolving Philanthropy to Becoming More Conscious

The anthropocentric bias embedded in the Western philanthropic paradigm, from the laws governing the sector, to the perceptions of competition, ignores the basic fact that humans are part of a much larger system.

The philanthropic sector can support this evolution by:

• Updating the definition of charity to include more entities.

• Realize that funding advocacy is necessary for many charities, human and non-human alike, to accomplish their missions.

• Funding partnerships between human and animal or environment-focused groups to increase impact for all.

  
  

At the last Humane Canada Summit for Animals, I was encouraged and amazed to listen to many speakers talk about One Health which recognizes the connection between human health and that of animals and the environment. I spoke to animal shelter directors about their role in natural disasters and shared stories of the many partnerships that could help attract more funding for animals.

Through the Just Be Cause Podcast, I have had the wonderful opportunity to talk with nonprofit professionals about this interconnection. Through these conversations, I’ve learned about the connection between defending Indigenous rights and natural spaces and species, about partnerships between social and animal services to serve our unhoused populations, and so much more. 

As I continue to dive deeper into the space, I am starting to see the term “non-human” philanthropy become less relevant. At the end of the day, it is an oxymoron, as humans are necessary to the process: as volunteers, program managers, activists, fundraisers, and, funders.

Now, the question is: will the philanthropic institutions that shape our sector follow suit?

An earlier version of this article was published in Alliance Magazine’s June 2023 issue.