The case against Oxfam built up rapidly, as the backlash from the public, politicians and their own “Global Ambassadors” had damaged the organization’s image permanently. Ever since their written plan was released, polls have demonstrated that the public still largely distrusts the charitable organization, and the same opinion was common among officials within the British Parliament.
The Public:
The expectations of the Oxfam charity are significantly higher than any other public groups such as politicians or bankers since they are under the halo effect, which means that the fall for them is much harder in a wake of a scandal. The general anger amongst the public occurred from the company’s attempts to “sweep under the carpet” rather than to recognizing their faults. Since charities have such a competitive environment, they rely on private and public contract from the government, as reputation is the only currency of a charity, which was noted by the Guardian.
The outcry for de-funding, was a common thought among the public on Social Media websites such as Facebook and Twitter. However, the anger was coming from people who already had initial distrust with the charity as seen in the examples below:
Even though a lot of the general population encourages to seize the funding of the charity, a crucial point has been circulating in the latest posts:
As someone who has directed humanitarian operations in various parts of the world with the UN, international Red Cross and NGOs, I am very concerned by the draconian response to the Oxfam situation (Critics ‘gunning for Oxfam’ over Haiti, 17 February). Of course, the allegations are serious, and Oxfam and others have failed in staff recruitment, monitoring and reporting. But in any operation abroad most of the staff are nationals, managed by relatively few internationals. From within and outside the country, nearly 100% of the staff will be honest, responsible, dedicated people providing highly effective services to those most in need. Often they will risk their lives doing so.
Only a very few will be a problem, yet our response is to slash funding, and punish all. By so doing, essential relief will be reduced or cancelled, and tens of thousands in the most difficult parts of the world will suffer extensively. Many will die.
Our response is even worse than the allegations made. “An eye for an eye, and the whole world goes blind,” said Gandhi.
Instead of punishing the most vulnerable, there should be a system whereby, when allegations are made against any British charity, an inspector is appointed by DfID. This person would be attached to the organisation in question for a couple of months to inspect systems and encourage their change when necessary. In the meantime, the operation remains functional.
Michael Stone
Moretonhampstead, Devonshirevia The Guardian Public Opinion
Right now, it poses the question of whether the amount of good the charity has completed outweighs the recent misconduct scandals they have been committing. Michael Stone makes a fantastic point of finding a third-party investigator to create more tight regulations instead of just dismissing an entire organization which has created positive impacted in multiple continents.
Public Figures:
With such a negative feedback from the public, influencers and officials have to be more careful with the statements which they put out. Their responses are structured to demonstrate disgust and compassion, which might be fully genuine, yet impractical to the future of these organizations.
In the primary stage of the scandal, Oxfam “Global Ambassador” Minnie Driver (English actress and singer-songwriter), has quit her position within the company. Ms. Driver had traveled to countries including Cambodia and Thailand in her role as the celebrity spokesperson, and has performed at a fundraising concert for Oxfam. Her departure might have added to the growing number of donor cancellations in the height of the scandal in February of 2018.
The negative responses were a common theme among Celebrities and Public Figures, however some have expressed their concerns about the future of the world if the organization is defunded.
British Government:
The British Government’s threat of defunding has been circulating news outlets for months now. Oxfam has agreed to remove themselves from bidding for government funding until the Department for International Development is satisfied with the expected “high standards” which the company has set. In a statement, Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary, has created a list of demands which Oxfam agreed upon.
The government reserves the right to take whatever decisions about present or future funding to Oxfam, and any other organisation, that we deem necessary.
– Penny Mordaunt
After the release of the statement, Mordaunt has demanded Oxfam to demonstrate how they would handle any allegations surrounding safeguarding and have their full cooperation with Haitian authorities in the case. Oxfam has confirmed, and released a detailed plan on their actions and intentions for the charity in the future.
Mordaunt has also added her understanding of the the hundreds of good and brave people who work for Oxfam around the world, yet to regain the trust of the British public, it would take several strict procedures before they could operate normally. Much of the funding to Oxfam depends on the support from the Government and public authorities, and as the allegations continued to flow in, more and more donations have been cancelled.
Ms. Mordaunt has indicated that millions in taxpayer funding could be cut off in the wake of the scandal. Other big-name supporters including Visa and Heathrow Airport said they were monitoring the situation.
In order to continue to receive funding, Oxfam has to depend on their plan to be successful in the future as they are fighting to regain the trust from the world.
Sources:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/18/oxfam-scandal-haiti-public-trust
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/19/beware-of-kneejerk-reaction-to-oxfam-scandal
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/16/oxfam-government-funding-cut-off-after-haiti-scandal
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43053141
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23oxfamscandal&src=typd
https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/oxfamscandal?source=feed_text
Oxfam Scandal 
Any company that does like this will face harsh backlash from the public, but when they try to sweep things under the rug, the criticisms become far more violent. I do agree with the tweet from Paul Polman, that the company does do an incredible amount of good and this can’t be taken away because of the actions of some of their employees. Although these employees failed to represent their company in a positive way, this isn’t to say that the company is bad in total. This is why I feel that the British government should continue funding Oxfam, but keep them under a microscope and ensure that they are operating in an ethical manner.
LikeLike
I agree with you completely. Through my analysis, I have figured that even though the organization’s unethical behavior went completely against their values, the defunding of this charity would have a larger negative impact on their current proactive projects. I think close monitoring will hopefully reduce the amount of misconduct cases which occur, as there should be more resources provided within the company, as Oxfam stated.
LikeLike
I understand the general population’s anger, yet I don’t agree with the idea of seizing the funding. Like Grace Dalton had mentioned, aid has caused substantial reductions in the proportions of humanity in severe poverty in recent decades. We shouldn’t stop supporting charity organizations nor should we let this problem reflect upon other organizations. I appreciated the fact that Oxfam has released a detailed plan on their actions and intentions for the charity in the future. I agree that this will help with regaining their supporters trust to receive funding once again.
LikeLike
While I was looking into ethical case studies, I’ve noticed that those other companies who were in hot water, would stretch out their blame instead of taking initiative. Oxfam’s apologetic tone via video and written statements promises a better future for the charity.
LikeLike
I think what Oxfam is seeing is the public backlash of what has happened. I think magnitude of what happened is only going to magnified by the fact that they’re supported by donations. It will definately take a long time for the public to regain there trust in Oxfam and there values and principles. However I don’t know if they will ever fully recover. The public remembers when a human rights organization experienced workers who committed major human rights violations.
LikeLike
I agree with you, however I think that the public comes and goes in rapid waves with a full range of emotions. Whenever a scandal emerges, people begin flooding social media with angry comments, yet after a public apology is released from the company, everything begins to calm down and eventually forgotten to a certain degree. People will definitely remember this case, and it will loose regular donors, however I think that in a couple of years this issue might be overlooked.
LikeLike
If any non-profit organizations ever receive any sort of negative publicity, it usually ends up becoming more and more similar to this kind of outlash. I definitely agree that the currency that non-profit organizations thrive on is reputation. If you have a good reputation, more people and organizations say good things and everyone bashes on the corrupt ones.
For instance, organizations that receive so much funding but spend most of their money on advertisements are really sad ones that are brought up constantly.
LikeLike
The thing is that, just like the Harvey Weinstein affect in Hollywood, after the Oxfam scandal which emerged this past February, many charity employees have been reporting misconduct issues. Even though it is heartbreaking to hear these stories, I think that this type of openness will create these safer environments which should have been there in the first place.
LikeLike