Key takeaways
Grant-giving alone can be virtue signaling. Companies must move beyond public pledges to hands-on community engagement and address systemic inequities alongside their financial contributions.
Unrestricted funding gives nonprofits the flexibility to cover operational costs and pivot quickly. COVID-19 exposed how organizations with too little unrestricted funding couldn't adapt to sudden change.
To build authentic cause partnerships, companies should remove power dynamics, ask nonprofits what they truly need, and apply an equity lens to who they fund — including underrepresented and indigenous communities.
This is part 3 of a three-part conversation with Jerome Tennille, Manager of Social Impact and Volunteerism at Marriott International, on disruptions in the social impact space. Jerome is joined by Janelle St. Omer, Regional Vice President at Benevity, for a candid discussion on what’s working — and what’s broken — in community investment and strategic philanthropy.
Also in this series:
Part 1: Why corporate social responsibility is even more important in business today
Part 2: What is the future of diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging in the workplace?
How companies can take authentic action beyond virtue signaling
One of the most pressing questions in corporate social responsibility today is how companies can move beyond statements and financial pledges to make authentic community investments. Jerome is direct: making a public pledge and following through on a financial commitment is not enough on its own.
“If you don’t go beyond that — to not just work on your own biases and blind spots, or actually getting hands-on and really invested with the community that’s being served as equals — then once you stop at just the grant giving, that, by itself, can be considered virtue signaling,” says Jerome. “It doesn’t address all the hard work that needs to be done.”
Why moving beyond statements is so difficult
There’s a spectrum when it comes to corporate community investment. Some companies truly own their commitments and show up boldly. Others are remembered only for pledges that went nowhere. Most fall somewhere in between.
Jerome points to leadership as the root cause: “First and foremost, the leadership has to care.” In publicly traded companies, additional stakeholders complicate bold decision-making — but when leadership genuinely gets it, they take front-line action. They’re not just making pledges; they’re acknowledging shortcomings and committing to the long, difficult work ahead.
“Most people want turnkey everything,” Jerome explains. “People’s attention span is just so pinprick immediate. So many people fail to have the desire and willingness to do the hard work — because it is really hard, and it’s a marathon, not a sprint.”
Going deeper than CSR reports
Annual CSR reports typically highlight outputs: dollars donated, volunteer hours logged, grants distributed. But the bigger opportunity lies in measuring and communicating outcomes — the actual impact those investments are making on the communities they serve.
“Many publicly facing goals are average at best,” Jerome says. “They’re purely quantitative — output-specific metrics. But too few companies and their partners focus enough on outcomes. Understanding their own theory of change and measuring progress toward short-term, immediate, and long-term outcomes — that’s where the real work is.”
What’s working in community investment
Jerome doesn’t shy away from a difficult truth: “I think there’s very little that’s working in the community investment realm.” COVID-19 exposed just how fragile the nonprofit sector’s financial system is — and how flawed the strategic philanthropy model has become.
“The systems that have been created, by whom they were created — it’s just an incredibly flawed funding mechanism for community-based organizations,” he says. The power brokers managing massive endowments and foundations often fund only specific projects and specific communities, leaving many behind. The concentration of decision-making authority at the top of the philanthropic ecosystem means that money flows to familiar recipients rather than those with the greatest need.
What community investment should look like
Jerome calls for a fundamental shift in how strategic philanthropy operates — starting with applying an equity lens not just to who is funded, but to how they’re funded and what expectations are placed on recipients.
“Strategic philanthropy sometimes has very unrealistic expectations,” Jerome explains. “The dollar size of the grant given to a nonprofit as restricted funding — the administrative and operational work on the back end can far exceed the cost of even applying for or receiving that grant.” Restricted grants can actually harm organizations by stripping away the operational flexibility needed for programs to function effectively.
He also advocates for greater diversity among grantees, drawing a direct parallel to supplier diversity: “You want to be just as diverse with where your grantees are. Are these indigenous tribes? Is this a community that might be underrepresented? Applying a more equitable lens in how you’re gifting money and to whom — that’s where I’d like to see more progress.”
Restricted vs. unrestricted grant funding
One of the most important distinctions in philanthropy is the difference between restricted and unrestricted funding. Unrestricted funding gives organizations the flexibility to use dollars however they’re needed most — covering rent, IT equipment, staff salaries, or event costs that are essential but hard to categorize as “programmatic.” Restricted funding, by contrast, ties every dollar to a specific program or outcome, leaving no room to maneuver.
COVID-19 made this difference impossible to ignore. “Organizations that had too little unrestricted funding and too much restricted funding were not able to quickly pivot to a more virtual, remote landscape,” Jerome explains. “Without the unrestricted funding, many organizations would not have been able to make that pivot at all.”
The reason many funders prefer restricted grants, Jerome argues, comes down to control: “Grant givers want to control the money. But to have a greater positive impact, you’ve got to relinquish that control. Put the faith in the community that you’re funding.”
How companies can partner with causes
Jerome’s advice for companies looking to build authentic partnerships with nonprofits is clear: remove the power dynamic as quickly as possible. “The power dynamic from a company can absolutely influence the decisions that an organization makes in terms of what they’re seeking for funding.”
His most important piece of advice? Ask the right question — and be genuinely open to whatever the answer is. “Ask what they most need the money for, and be open for whatever that answer is, even if it doesn’t meet your pre-baked notion or idea of what the funding should support.”
Building trust, relinquishing control, and following the lead of community-based partners are the foundations of a philanthropy model that can move beyond virtue signaling toward real, lasting impact.
Connect with the guests:
Visit Jerome Tennille’s website
Connect with Jerome Tennille on LinkedIn
Connect with Janelle St. Omer on LinkedIn
Interested in learning more about employee giving and how Benevity can support your community investment strategy?
