[lulumay]

For all who have attended the Orientation class of the SPCA organized Dog training and obedience course, I would like your opinions, comments and support.

We had just attended the orientation class and were made to sit through a 30 minutes presentation by the Hill's pet food company. From an ethical point of view, any charitable not-for profit organization shall not be engaged in the some of following commercial activities:

-should not be supporting, recommending, endorsing or promoting any commercial brands, for-profit companies, or for-profit professionals.
-should not be engaged in, or facilitating, any for-profit business activities.
-The public should not be commercially marketed without our prior knowledge when attending any events organized by a not-for-profit organization.
-the not-for-profit organization shall not trade or offer its facilities, staff and personnel, members details and information for donations.

We need support in submitting a letter to the SPCA requesting them to cease all unethical illicit commercial activities. If anyone is interested or would like additional information or discussion, please post or (edited) PM Me (/edited)

[PC_Man]

Before you go too far down this avenue, I think it may be worth pointing out that the the service you went to the SPCA for had nothing to do with the non-profit section of the organisation.

It runs a dog training and behaviour section, just as it runs a clinic section, that are priced at market rates with the intention of making a profit.

The difference from totally private sector companies is that this profit is then re-directed to animal welfare rather than to shareholders/partners etc.

If they can maximise this profit by using sponsorship and professional endorsements, then further animals will benefit from the extra money generated.

Now if the commercialism was still excessive then contact them and let them know you feelings, but do bear in mind that they are running a business as well as a charity.

If the issue is more with the service then definitely contact them as I'm sure they would like feedback to improve the classes.

[sunniefaith]

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm under the impression that there's a possibility that Hills might have paid or sponsored SPCA and therefore they made that presentation. Isn't there also a possibility that since Hills paid SPCA, therefore the Orientation class of the SPCA organized Dog training and obedience might cost lesser or it even might be free?

[lulumay]

PC-man, I do understand that SPCA has to be financial sound as they are running a business, for or not for profit. The problem is that NO ONE, should be capitalizing the name of a non-profit, which is partially subsidized by the government and public donation. If any for profit, Hill's or any other company, donates money or products to SPCA, that donation is tax deductible but Hill's or any not for profit should not be utilizing a non-profits name to make money. A donation is clearly define a monetary giving ( or equivalent) and the giver should receive nothing in return.

Sunniefaith - If Hill's is the sponsor or have paid (full or part of ) for the courses, then the SPCA is required to state that the classes are funded by a for-profit company. Even if Hill's subsidized the courses, the SPCA should be partnering with a single company to sell and market products to its members.

This is an ethical and maybe a legal issue here. I only have experience with non-profits in the US. It would be great if anyone with legal background can chip in their comments. Even if SPCA did not violate any laws, isn't the perception of violation enough to ask them stop this practice (See the Sarbanes-Oxley Act).

[PC_Man]

Not sure what deal they would have structured.

May be donating free food for homing animals in return for opportunity to make presentation or may be straight payments.

Don't have price comparisons but think there are a few people here who may be able to compare SPCA with wishyouwerehere and Rose Tang - they'd be better placed to say if the price is lower (if is can assume sponsorship played a part).

[PC_Man]

Lulumay - I'm not strong on the legal implications so can't answer specifically on that.

Would imagine they aren't breaking any rules, as there are a lot of people in similar industries w/o the non-profit label who would like to see the SPCA do only animal welfare work and none of the for-profit work. None of them have ever managed to find anything improper as far as I'm aware.

From Hills perspective, I assume it's no different from sponsoring any other vet clinic or pet service company. Thay make the deal that best suits them for the highest exposure they can get.

As far as I can see, a lot of other charities do tie-ins with corporations to help raise funds - credit cards seem to be a popular one.

Ethics - never thought about it...
But I've have always considered the SPCA as a commercial venture with a welfare arm rather than other way round...

[lulumay]

PCMAN,

It is not a money issues. Its not how much the user pays for the course. Nor is it how much Hill's sponsors or sponsors at all. The issue is that non-profit needs to be diligent and not abuse its status as a not-for-profit. You hit the nail on the head, "But I've have always considered the SPCA as a commercial venture with a welfare arm rather than other way round." It is the organization's own responsibility not to confuse the public in their mission and goals. Each organization needs to stand for their mission and goals and avoid, at all cost, the perception, or possible, of conflict of interest.

When an organization receives money from either donation, or grants from government, they are spending our money. They are acting on our behalves to use the money appropriately. When Hill's uses SPCA's member's list and facilities; taking advantage of SPCA's name and goodwill; Hill's is not doing anything wrong. SPCA is. There is clear definition of what a non-profit is. We do not have to accept this even though it is common practice in Hong Kong. I care where my money goes. I care where my taxes go.

Imagine if anyone who attended that course who is an owner or representative of a pet food company who is donating or considering a donation, how would that person react? SPCA had taken the advantage from Hill's and neglected others and not acting on the best interest of the public. There is a possibility that there are more money out there for the SPCA but they decided to close there door on themselves. Would one ever consider that a board member, a senior staff, executive committee member, or anyone else affiliated with the SPCA is also affiliated with Hill's financially?

We do not know what the best food is for our dogs. We were only told that Hill's is the ONLY food suitable for our dogs. SPCA should give advice without prejudice. If the SPCA choose to have a course in pet food diet, have a class for Pet Food Diet and dont pretend that Hill's is best for us.

I am happy to go on. I have not been affected by other not-for-profits but believe me, I'll get there.

[PC_Man]

Ok - appreciate your point but where then does the line get drawn??

Would you suggest that the SPCA gives up all commercial activities? I understand that it's a large proportion of their income.

Whilst I'm not aware of anyone using a similar modal elsewhere in the world, there are many animal charites that run shops etc.

Or do we just object to their use of international corporations to sponsor events and services?
Don't most charities rely on corporations to aid in their donations and their events?

Or do we just object to a sponsor getting the time to promote themselves at an event they may have sponsored? Wouldn't that be the norm at all charity events?

Appreciate that you hadn't turned up specifially for a charitable event, but then if you'd gone for a paid training class, why the surprise that they treated it like any training class might do, with opportunities to promote own products and partners?

Do agree that would expect a more balanced opinion on diet from the SPCA but assume that no-one there would turn round and say that Hills was only option.

More questions there than anything else...

[hello_there]

Sorry, but US non-profit rules do not apply to HK non-profit organizations... In fact, the US rules regarding sponsorship and financing focus on the 501(c)(3) tax exemption status of non-profit organizations and ethics has nothing to do with it. As long as a US charity organization is not claiming tax exempt status under 501(c)(3) it can do whatever it wants and be sponsored by anyone it wants. HK charity organizations certainly do not have to comply with US style rules, and the SPCA here follows all applicable guidelines in HK. Also, I don't have any idea, from a legal standpoint, how a HK based non-profit could fall under the jursidiction of the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was enacted to address corporate accounting and fraud issues with public (exchange-listed) companies doing business in the US.