Skip to main content
 
  • 88 Addison Avenue
    Athelstone SA
    5076
    Australia
    041 849 5834 

Copyright © 2020 All Rights Reserved • Powered by ClubExpress • Terms of Use • Privacy Policy

News / Articles

The Funding Conundrum

John Fleming | Published on 10/5/2026
Is there such a thing as bad money when it comes to protecting the environment?

Where is the line between good and bad?  If the money is to be put to good use, and delivers a positive outcome, does that "offset" that it may have come from a source that is not environmentally friendly?

Recently the committee was challenged with this dilemma.  A funding source was brought to our attention that would have been ideal for us to start the re-vegetation work associated with the olive control work completed this year adjacent to Olive Hill.

The parameters for the grant looked good:

We seek to support initiatives that promote environmental enhancement in our local communities, and in particular, initiatives that are focused on improving biodiversity of natural habitats, community conservation and environmental education (for example, land rehabilitation and revegetation programs, clean-up and education days and local conservation projects).

The conditions looked typical:

The Grantee must keep and maintain adequate insurance (including public liability insurance) for the activities carried out by the Grantee in relation to the Project against any claims for loss or damage to property, and injury or death to persons. 
16. The Grantee will provide a final report in relation to the Project within the earlier of: four weeks from the end date of the Project; and 12 months from receipt of the grant. 
17. If, at any time, the stated purpose of the Project is no longer possible or cannot be completed in the manner described in the application submitted, the Grantee must advise "business name" of that inability and discuss an alternate use of the grant. 
18. Should the actual total costs of the Project be more than the proposed costs of the Project, neither "business name", the Trustee, "name of the fund" Community Fund, or any of their related bodies corporate will be responsible or be obliged to pay any monies to the Grantee in excess of the Final Grant Amount. 
19. "business name" will request that the "business name" Community Giving Fund’s assistance to the Project be acknowledged, regardless of the Final Grant Amount. "business name" will provide to the Grantee the appropriate "business name" logo and associated guidelines to use in relation to this acknowledgement. To acknowledge the "business name" Community Giving Fund’s assistance, the Grantee must display the "business name" logo, or state in writing that the "business name" Community Giving Fund has assisted with the funding of the Project, in accordance with the associated guidelines provided. 
20. All advertising, signage, media releases and other promotional material that contains the "business name" logo or a reference to the "business name" Community Giving Fund must be submitted to and approved by "business name" prior to its production and release. "business name" reserves the right to make amendments prior to any such release. 
21. "business name" may request to use photos, videos and quotes from the Grantee for marketing purposes including advertising, publications and on websites as agreed between "business name" and the Grantee. All such materials used will become the property of "business name". 
22. "business name" may request the Grantee to take part in media activities such as photo opportunities, media calls or approvals for quotes for media materials, which the Grantee must not reasonably refuse. 
23. The Grantee must not do or say anything, or cause anyone to do or say anything that may prejudice, be detrimental to or cause damage to the name and reputation of "business name". 
24. The Grantee releases "business name", the Trustee and the "name of the fund" Community Fund from any action or claim arising out of or in connection with the "business name" Community Giving Fund or any Project.

There is a clear indication that the source of the funds would be able to keep a level of control with any messaging around the project, expect attribution of the funding source, and seek to use the project as promotional material for their own purposes.

We seek to support initiatives that promote environmental enhancement in our local communities, and in particular, initiatives that are focused on improving biodiversity of natural habitats, community conservation and environmental education (for example, land rehabilitation and revegetation programs, clean-up and education days and local conservation projects).

The conditions looked typical:

The Grantee must keep and maintain adequate insurance (including public liability insurance) for the activities carried out by the Grantee in relation to the Project against any claims for loss or damage to property, and injury or death to persons. 
16. The Grantee will provide a final report in relation to the Project within the earlier of: four weeks from the end date of the Project; and 12 months from receipt of the grant. 
17. If, at any time, the stated purpose of the Project is no longer possible or cannot be completed in the manner described in the application submitted, the Grantee must advise "business name" of that inability and discuss an alternate use of the grant. 
18. Should the actual total costs of the Project be more than the proposed costs of the Project, neither "business name", the Trustee, "name of the fund" Community Fund, or any of their related bodies corporate will be responsible or be obliged to pay any monies to the Grantee in excess of the Final Grant Amount. 
19. "business name" will request that the "business name" Community Giving Fund’s assistance to the Project be acknowledged, regardless of the Final Grant Amount. "business name" will provide to the Grantee the appropriate "business name" logo and associated guidelines to use in relation to this acknowledgement. To acknowledge the "business name" Community Giving Fund’s assistance, the Grantee must display the "business name" logo, or state in writing that the "business name" Community Giving Fund has assisted with the funding of the Project, in accordance with the associated guidelines provided. 
20. All advertising, signage, media releases and other promotional material that contains the "business name" logo or a reference to the "business name" Community Giving Fund must be submitted to and approved by "business name" prior to its production and release. "business name" reserves the right to make amendments prior to any such release. 
21. "business name" may request to use photos, videos and quotes from the Grantee for marketing purposes including advertising, publications and on websites as agreed between "business name" and the Grantee. All such materials used will become the property of "business name". 
22. "business name" may request the Grantee to take part in media activities such as photo opportunities, media calls or approvals for quotes for media materials, which the Grantee must not reasonably refuse. 
23. The Grantee must not do or say anything, or cause anyone to do or say anything that may prejudice, be detrimental to or cause damage to the name and reputation of "business name". 
24. The Grantee releases "business name", the Trustee and the "name of the fund" Community Fund from any action or claim arising out of or in connection with the "business name" Community Giving Fund or any Project.

There is a clear indication that the source of the funds would be able to keep a level of control with any messaging around the project, expect attribution of the funding source, and seek to use the project as promotional material for their own purposes.

What is the catch? 

The business involved is a transport business, whose primary work is to haul coal from coal mines to shipping terminals for export.

In the end, the committee decided not to apply for these funds as we felt making a connection between coal production and transport and environmental work was inappropriate, and provided the business an opportunity for "greenwashing" their credentials. 

Here are some thoughts from the the committee's discussion:

  • We should apply. Landcare and bush regeneration work, and its benefits to wellbeing tick a couple of the criteria. Nice article on this subject recently in  ABC News here.
  • My view is that it is worth exploring, provided we are comfortable that the proposed project strongly aligns with our environmental objectives. The funding criteria appear to support activities such as biodiversity improvement, habitat restoration, community conservation and environmental education, all of which seem consistent with the aims of FOBHM.
  • I can understand why some members may have concerns. There is a legitimate question about whether accepting funding from a company connected to the coal industry is consistent with our values and public image. At the same time, the purpose of this particular fund is to support environmental projects that deliver tangible benefits to local communities.
  • I also think we should consider how our members, volunteers and the wider community may view such a partnership. If there is broad support within the organisation and the project aligns clearly with our mission, then applying for the grant could be justified. If there are significant concerns, we should discuss those openly before proceeding.
  • Overall, I would support further investigation of the opportunity and the development of a suitable project proposal, while continuing the discussion about whether the committee is comfortable accepting funding from "the business name".
  • Question

    Assessment from the evidence

    Does the Fund actually provide money to community organisations?

    Yes

    Does it fund environmental projects?

    Yes

    Is the Fund itself evidence that "business name" overall business is environmentally sustainable?

    No

    Could highlighting the Fund improve "business name" social/environmental image?

    Potentially

    Is that, by itself, proof of greenwashing?

    No

In the end, the decision was made that we should seek sources of funds that do to not put the group at risk of a compromise of this nature.

What do you think?

Did the committee do the right thing?

Should we be mindful of the source of funds for our projects?

How do we balance the community and member perception, public profile, and getting the work done?

What if the business did not seek to gain promotional opportunities through their funding of environmental projects?  Would this make it acceptable?

I have started a new General Discussion Forum for members - Feel free to add your comments there. Just remember, Forum posts are logged, and a permanent record of posts is maintained behind the scenes that only our provider can access - these archived records cannot be edited or deleted and are kept in the event of any legal dispute arising about posts. So be respectful and conscious of not exposing yourself to accusation of defamation.