And once again the gullible queue up to be gulled

[jenkinsbrynmair]

And don't forget WWF have more than one CEO - I've only dealt with WWF Germany WWF UK and WWF offices in Nairobi and Daar es Salaam when I was scoping a project for them in Tanzania

 

[pargyle]

Comes under the cost category of raising voluntary funds as do all of their other supposed costs. Their running costs are circa £18m against revenues of £80m with a total spend of £78m. What they don't say is that a further circa £28m goes towards funding their own activities such as growing their network and offices and PR campaigns. Bottom line about 43p in the £ goes where most people would assume it should go, e.g. conservation of the natural world. Still, better than some of the other charities I've seen.

The reality is that they do good work in the natural world, they are high profile and their campaigns have had an impact from their earliest days in drawing attention to the plight of the wildlife throughout the world. ... As we were saying in another thread about the BBKA recently - if you pay peanuts you get monkeys .. with a turnover of £80m and an organisation as complex and of that size I would expect a CEO to have a remuneration commensurate with a similar organisation in the commercial world. OK .. it's a lot of money but they are obviously successful and some credit must go to the CEO - he would not last long if they weren't demonstrating success.

In the USA there is an independent charity watchdog ... Charity Navigator.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/search?q=WWF
They look at a whole variety of criteria - which includes the percentage of revenue that goes to the charitable work they do. You can look up a charity and see where they stand in the grand scheme of things by their rating. WWF come out with 3 out of 4 stars and an 84% rating. Sadly, we have nothing similar here and I would agree that there are some charities that probably have more in the adage 'charity begins at home' when you look at the income vs expenditure ratios. 43p in the pound used for actual work in the field appears to be about average for the bigger charities. Whether this is reasonable depends upon your point of view ....

 

[blackcloud]

However good the charity,that's an obscene amount of money(even if there's the 'philanthropy' tax avoidance in play)
I wonder how many hours he actually put in for that renumeration.
It used to be Oxfam that were the bad guys!

 

[Karol]

The reality is that they do good work in the natural world, they are high profile and their campaigns have had an impact from their earliest days in drawing attention to the plight of the wildlife throughout the world. ... As we were saying in another thread about the BBKA recently - if you pay peanuts you get monkeys .. with a turnover of £80m and an organisation as complex and of that size I would expect a CEO to have a remuneration commensurate with a similar organisation in the commercial world. OK .. it's a lot of money but they are obviously successful and some credit must go to the CEO - he would not last long if they weren't demonstrating success.

In the USA there is an independent charity watchdog ... Charity Navigator.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/search?q=WWF
They look at a whole variety of criteria - which includes the percentage of revenue that goes to the charitable work they do. You can look up a charity and see where they stand in the grand scheme of things by their rating. WWF come out with 3 out of 4 stars and an 84% rating. Sadly, we have nothing similar here and I would agree that there are some charities that probably have more in the adage 'charity begins at home' when you look at the income vs expenditure ratios. 43p in the pound used for actual work in the field appears to be about average for the bigger charities. Whether this is reasonable depends upon your point of view ....

£28m would go a long way in field work, far more than spending that money on their network of offices and PR.

As to whether they actually do good work then I doubt there's anyone qualified to answer that. Resuscitating individual bees? Why not if it helps pay the CEO's salary. Doesn't make the WWF any more of a serious charity though. I prefer to fund conservation through ZSL personally.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

In the end it's got precious little to do with saving endangered animals and all to do with a cynical jumping on the 'save the bees' bandwagon and encourage foolish people to waste their money on tat. It does more to tarnish their reputation than anything else.

 

[blackcloud]

The resources used and subsequent pollution caused by the devices manufacture transport and discard surely offset the benefit of saving elderly foragers?

 

[Kali]

Wow a bee rescue keyring just like they have in the fairytale.... what was it called again ....

Oh it was gullibles travels

None the less it's for a good cause