From Ortega to Roig: Achievements and Missteps of Philanthropy in Spain

Now that polarization has turned any political insinuation into a guaranteed fight , into a ritual as theatricalized on social media as a performance of La verbena de la paloma , it is worth noting that beyond the noise, some controversies—because they are complex—are more worthwhile than others.

Example. Although every time Amancio Ortega makes a donation, the opposing positions are perfectly aligned—between the millionaire seeking to launder his identity and the dream philanthropist—the political issue at stake—philanthropy in sensationalized free-market societies—has too many facets to be left to the whims of social media.

Carlos Almela takes on the task of dissecting the melon in his essay "Bastard Philanthropy" (Círculo de Bellas Artes). We talk with him about money laundering, altruism, and why we don't need philanthropic heroes (but we do need their money).

QUESTION. The reconstruction of Notre Dame was the last great show of philanthropic strength… with its dark side. Between celebration and exhibitionism. What went wrong there?

ANSWER: Well, that's exactly it: we live in a society of spectacle where donations, traditionally more discreet, are staged. And this media coverage exposes both applause and boos, reflecting both the legitimacy of large-scale philanthropy to intervene in the public interest... and its fragility.

French luxury industrialists were the first to issue statements and press releases after the fire. The Pinault family (Kering) made their move with an initial pledge of €100 million… with the cathedral practically still smoking. Bernard Arnault (LVMH) and the Bettencourt family (L'Oréal) followed suit, with €200 million each.

It's important to note that, on the night of the fire, Macron had already issued a call for donations, and the Ministry of Culture quickly arranged for four vehicles to receive them. It would be unfair to say that these ultra-rich acted as gun-toting patrons.

That said, there are two more issues in the controversy.

The first has to do with the symbolic level. Given the tax advantages that the French patronage system allows, and the cost it represents to the public coffers, in reality, all French people contribute to what was later presented as Pinault's or Arnault's donation. Why so much applause for the economic elites, and not more celebration of the important (and anonymous) mass philanthropy?

The second issue concerns social justice. In a world plagued by growing socioeconomic inequality, there's something obscene about the elites' immediate ability to contribute money that often seems hard to find. And this raises the question of the hierarchy of social causes. Why does Notre Dame manage to raise billions of euros in a matter of weeks, while the fight against homelessness, racism, or Palestinian refugees only just manage to do so?

In the book, I embrace Tina Turner's anthem: " We don't need another hero." If we believe in democracy, we also need to see the elites rolling up their sleeves with the people, with social movements. Not just contributing with their checkbooks.

Q. The Valencian Dana was almost an experiment in the various types of public aid and private philanthropy. Between bureaucracy and direct action, between slow order and dizzying chaos, who handled the situation more effectively?

A. It's obvious that during the Dana, the main entity that failed, unfortunately, was public: the Generalitat. And it failed due to irresponsibility, with cuts to the regional emergency service as a backdrop.

That said, during the Dana, all types of action (public, private, citizen) converged to respond to the tragedy, allowing us to rethink the competitive and complementary relationships between state, civil society, and community action.

The wave of generosity and civic spirit was incredible, from the neighbors who welcomed people into their homes, to the people from all over Spain who arrived with shovels, food, and water. That response was the first, naturally, but without the public organization of this civic force, everything would have been chaos.

It should be noted that, however positive private and civic generosity may be, it is always more noticeable in emergencies than in reconstruction. In the early days of the Dana, Amancio Ortega, Juan Roig, the Kings, and Rosalía all passed through. Some contributed hundreds of millions of euros, others pledged their institutional or symbolic capital, or even picked up a shovel.

But deep reconstruction is being carried out with public funds, with local stakeholders, with city councils, with grassroots organizations like the Fundació Horta Sud, which maintains daily relationships with the community and schools, and is even considering the necessary transformations in the region.

It's also clear that the distribution of state aid, due to administrative controls, cannot be as agile as Mercadona's. Why is this? Is it due to decades of neoliberalism that attempt to provoke and demonstrate the ineffectiveness of public services? Is it due to decades of corruption, still prevalent, that force us into systems with cumbersome bureaucracies and controls? Is it due to a lack of institutional imagination and legal innovation?

For future occasions, it's better to improve public-private-community collaboration mechanisms than to fight over who deserves credit. It's clear that the response is more effective when everyone works together.

Q. Delving into Mercadona's work. During the Dana, it was in the spotlight on social media, both for better and for worse, from aid to flood victims to its supermarket delivery workers trapped by the flood. How would you describe its work after the flood?

A. On the philanthropic front, Mercadona 's action was notable, swift, and positive: they launched a €40 million grant for affected workers; the Business Navy contributed another €25 million in aid to self-employed workers, SMEs, and startups . Resources and aid were also allocated to schools, with a particular focus on cafeterias.

Furthermore, through the foundations he presides, which have expertise in these areas, Juan Roig [owner of Mercadona] supported sports federations to recover equipment and resume their activities. Hortensia Herrero [Roig's wife and vice president of Mercadona] did the same in the cultural field, with 4 million euros for silk crafts, marching bands, and dance schools.

That said, and applauding these measures, does this free the owner of Mercadona from criticism? That afternoon, when many companies closed their operations to protect their workers, Mercadona missed the opportunity to set an example by protecting its staff.

Applauding the Roigs' philanthropy shouldn't prevent us from criticizing their company if there's a reason to do so, whether it's its management, price margin, or business model. We need to be able to qualify.

The path to progress in corporate patronage lies in greater coherence. Hopefully, we'll have companies truly committed to social responsibility, with sustainable business models, and at the same time, dedicating as much of their profits as possible to the common good.

"We're still caught in a Christian debate about whether the patron is a good person. Amancio's goodness isn't the relevant issue."

Q. In this regard, Amancio Ortega is the king of arguments about philanthropy, from "he's just trying to whitewash himself" to "on top of giving away his fortune, you complain." What do these discussions tell us about the limits of philanthropy?

A. We're told there's a lack of social consensus on philanthropy. That the nineteenth-century social contract no longer works and consensus needs to be regenerated. It's natural that what generates the most friction, in a democracy that seeks to be advanced, is the philanthropic action of business elites, because we've learned to look down on the powerful, even the most well-intentioned.

Since you mention the word "launder ," I'll start with the economics: philanthropy isn't money laundering; it's not a tax-profitable activity. Those who donate money lose money, no matter how many deductions there are. It's been studied that these tax advantages aren't decisive, nor are they usually the main reason for patronage by individuals and businesses.

Another issue is image whitewashing. What I try to explain in the book is that when we focus too much on whitewashing, conscience buying, or papal bulls, we remain trapped in a Christian debate about whether a patron is a good person or not.

Honestly, as a philanthropist , I don't think Amancio's kindness is the relevant issue. I think it's more important to evaluate the rigor of his philanthropic work, the quality of his foundation's work, or his long-standing commitment to public health.

Q. Let's talk about two specific philanthropic initiatives by the owner of Zara: cancer-fighting machines and the Dana fund. How do you see them?

A. Regarding the cancer-fighting machines, I think there are several positive points to highlight. It's a program in collaboration with hospitals and regional health authorities. Amancio hasn't set up a private clinic with his machines ; rather, he recognizes and honors the public health system.

It's also a program that demonstrates the role philanthropy seeks to play today: complementing the work of the state, in this case in the area of ​​welfare, by providing innovations that would otherwise take longer to arrive. In fact, its program was gradually tested and then expanded to several locations in Spain, and is now also being rolled out in Portugal.

However, there is a lack of consensus on their implementation, dialogue with medical federations, and greater transparency in reporting. Criticism from political parties and medical associations was widespread, anticipating that deployment on the ground would be slow, costly, and erratic. Why these machines and not other urgent public health issues? Is the decision based on Amancio's hunch, his biography, or a rigorous report prepared with universities and social partners?

Just because you have the means and resources doesn't mean you can freely decide that hospitals need this or that machine. You may have a desire, an intuition, a proposal, but you have to build strategies, arguments, consensus, and network.

Regarding the Dana fund, we are in the emergency phase, with a more timely and substantial donation: 100 million euros in direct aid for those affected, transferred through the municipalities of L'Horta Sud and Castilla-La Mancha. Going through the public sector guarantees transparency, equity, and uniformity: the Amancio Ortega Foundation lacks the team or expertise to distribute this aid. But, given the relative administrative slowness, would other channels have been equally secure, but more agile?

Q. What do you think of the philanthropic work of (Zara founder and Amancio's ex-wife) Rosalía Mera?

A. Her philanthropic journey is beautiful; it has to do with the arrival into the world of a child with functional diversity, and from there, the desire to organize a philanthropic project, such as Paideia Galiza . Few patrons do what she did, which is to train in teaching, while simultaneously shaping this foundation committed to education and inclusion. This love of knowledge translated into a series of publications of foreign essays on critical pedagogy that, I imagine, were difficult to find in Spanish at that time.

Rosalía Mera did more. She was one of the few patrons, with her financial standing, to mobilize behind the Prestige , to applaud the work of the Indignados during the 15M movement, and to fight for the right to abortion when the People's Party (PP) threatened to back down. Her desire to protect and defend the Galician language is also notable.

This consistency is unusual. And precisely for this reason, I believe your Foundation could be even more avant-garde, more transparent, and interactive in its communication, experiment with more open forms of governance, practice participatory fundraising, and take greater risks with its programs.

"In Spain, half of the annual philanthropic effort is individual donations, the vast majority of which are anonymous."

Q. What role do anonymous donations play in the Spanish philanthropic system?

A. Anonymous donations are key because they provide the third sector with invaluable economic and political autonomy. NGOs like Oxfam, Greenpeace, and Amnesty International, to name a few of the major ones, neither want nor should depend on government guidelines.

In Spain, half of the annual philanthropic effort is individual donations, the vast majority of which are anonymous.

Our Patronage Law encourages small donations (such as the fees we usually pay to associations), and while this may seem to distance us from the tax advantages of France or the United States, to me it's a sign of a redistribution of the power to donate and contribute to the common good, of a healthy ecosystem.

In addition to donations, we must also celebrate the countless gestures of care for the common good that are not monetary: volunteering, activism, involvement in self-managed social centers, support among neighbors, food donations, commitment to ecology... Or is it just love for humanity (philanthropy) from the Gateses, Soros, Gulbenkian or La Caixa ?

Q. Give me a blatant example of philanthropy as corporate laundering.

A. It's not easy to prove corporate money laundering through philanthropy, because when it exists, evidence of the blatant crime is usually not left behind.

There's the scandal surrounding the Sackler family, owners of the pharmaceutical company Purdue, who hid their addiction and the devastating effects of their opioids. Their artistic philanthropy has been described as a tremendous whitewash. Mobilizations like that of Nan Goldin and the PAIN collective forced the Louvre, the Met, and dozens of cultural institutions to remove plaques bearing the Sackler name and reject donations from the family. But as the book Empire of Pain notes, it's not so easy to prove the direct link: the Sacklers had been donating their entire lives, decades before the success of the opiate OxyContin. What is clear is that philanthropy brought them status and brilliance; also, that they avoided at all costs associating their last name with the pharmaceutical company. They wanted Sackler to be one thing, and Purdue another.

There is also the tobacco company Philip Morris, flagrantly using its patronage to blackmail the New York cultural institutions it funded: the company encouraged them to position themselves against anti-smoking legislation (as researcher Chin-Tao Wu shows in Privatizing Culture ).

Q. In the book, you point out that the critics who dismiss all philanthropy as a handout from the rich should be more precise. What should good philanthropy look like?

A. To begin with, this charity represents nearly 2.4% of Spain's GDP, 589,000 jobs, and €6 billion in donations and programs, according to an analysis by the Spanish Association of Foundations. Of course, philanthropy is marginal compared to the state or the market, but the social change we need often emerges on the margins.

Good philanthropy, I call it "bastard" in the book: it is the child of capital, of civil society, of modernity, naturally, but also of social movements, of a real commitment to social justice.

In the book, I analyze five key elements: abandoning laurels, heroism, and protagonism and recognizing other social forces of change as accomplices; working in close complementarity with the public sector; fully professionalizing philanthropy, above all, by diversifying profiles (there are plenty of financiers and marketing professionals, but there's a lack of experts in the social causes being pursued!); redistributing power, transforming boards of trustees so they're not clubs for wealthy white men, creating committees of experts, trusting professional teams, and inventing mechanisms for distributing funds shared with beneficiaries. And finally, where it exists, recognizing the bourgeois, white, colonial, patriarchal affiliation of philanthropy as a starting point for doing things differently, from the perspective of the social economy and putting life at the center, as Yayo Herrero would say. We must accept it, take responsibility, as Alfred Nobel did: invent dynamite, but later, at least, create a Peace Prize.