The life and times of a younger member volunteer and medicinal chemist.

Corporate Charity? (Part 1)

Ouch, that’s a painful oxymoron, I hear you cry! This seems to be the direct in which the RSC is heading – The Free Radical has highlighted some a number of examples of this corporate approach.
 
A prime example is the requirement to conform to “corporate guidelines” when using the RSC logo. Of course, it goes without saying that the logo shouldn’t be modified and respect is due – but being constrained by layers and layers of regulation about colours and distances seems counter-productive. Considering most of the public associate the RSC with the Royal Shakespeare Company, you would have thought the Royal Society of Chemistry would be falling over itself to try and get the brand out there, not isolating it behind layers of guidelines.
 
Perhaps more alarming, we’ve been told that conferences will only be supported if they make a profit or at least breakeven. This came up repeatedly at the GA and the last CBiD meeting. Clearly cost minimisation is important, but as a charity surely we should be considering the benefits and whether the event advances the chemical sciences not profitability?
 
I don’t want to come across as simply being a naysayer. I think the RSC is brilliant – the society does a huge amount of great work at the coalface, through the interest groups, local sections and other member groups. However, as with so many corporations, there are ever increasing layer of bureaucracy and ‘oversight’ – and some of these latter now seem to be little more than glorified rubber-stamping committees. But perhaps this can be saved for another blog post (probably with a title relating to Ivory Towers).
 
Another thing that the RSC now seems to have in common with a lot of corporations is an apparent issue with pension liabilities. I haven’t seen this talked about too much – but a quick look at the P&L in the Trustees Report 2009 shows a recognised expenditure of £10.1 million to cover actuarial losses on the defined benefit pension scheme (compared to £2.9 million spent on membership activities). I’m not saying this is wrong, but just putting it out there as something we perhaps should be discussing.
 
In closing, I’ve signed up as a volunteer to a charity – I give my time freely to help achieve our society’s aims. Bureaucracy, committees and other corporate apparatus are getting in the way of what the society does best – advancing the chemical sciences in the world. We all agree professionalism is important – but we can be professional without being corporate.
Posted by Ben Seager-Scott on Feb 14, 2011 10:54 PM Europe/London

Share this |

Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Share to Linked More...

Leave a comment?

You must be signed in to leave a comment on MyRSC blogs.

Register free for an account at http://my.rsc.org/registration.

Comments