Our Blog

The WE scandal has raised serious concerns about the WE organization’s links to the Trudeau government and questionable decision-making processes that led to it being designated the only organization able to carry out an ambitious volunteer program for Canadian students. In the midst of the evolving WE scandal, the group’s co-founders, Craig and Marc Kielburger, announced the organization would put WE Days on hold and return to its international development “roots”.

This decision – also discussed in a previous McLeod Group blog – might suggest that the organization has strong credentials as a development agency. A careful examination is required, however, of the activities that WE calls international development work: ME to WE voluntourism trips (working “alongside developing communities”) and WE villages (“an adaptive international development model”). What we know about these programs suggests that WE has an international development identity problem.

ME to WE’s voluntourism trips are high-cost excursions to low-income countries, combining tourism with volunteer work such as building schools. The voluntourists are often young Canadians who lack the skills or credentials to do this type of work in Canada, so the impact and ethics of their construction efforts in low-income countries are highly questionable. Critics of voluntourism raise questions about poverty voyeurism and white saviourism, as well as the creation of an artificial demand for unskilled labourers.

Rather than building intercultural competencies, such programs can perpetuate stereotypes of the “other” because deep intercultural learning does not happen in one-week visits. Voluntourism, unlike properly supported international development volunteering programs, can perpetuate colonialism, racism and inequality. Voluntourism is frequently used in international development studies as the prime example of what not to do.

WE Charity also funds programs in “WE Villages” in nine countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America, to the tune of $26.8 million in 2019. The programs supported through these funds go to infrastructure and support for water, food security, education, health and income-generating opportunities. On the surface, these programs use the language of international development priorities and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, the model of sponsored villages raises serious concerns about their viability and sustainability.

Villages do not exist in a bubble. They are neighbours to – and trading partners with – other communities and they are part of a broader society and nation. Looking at a similar model – the Millennium Villages, promoted by economist Jeffrey Sachs – we have learned that sponsored “darling” villages become lab experiments and can lead to new problems.

And what about the colonial implications of branding villages with the WE name? This strategy serves to remove the perception of ownership from the community members and to put that ownership into the hands of the donors. International development researchers and practitioners have long argued that local ownership of development projects is essential for the sustainability of programs and for ensuring positive results. Referring to the villages where WE works as “WE Villages” may suit the organization’s promotional purposes, but it also reinforces a relationship of power and inequality and diminishes the rights and dignity of the people these programs are meant to serve.

Over the years, many criticisms have been levelled at many non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but they have learned from these critiques and changed their practices. WE Charity, however, is not a typical organization. It is not accredited with the Standards Program coordinated by Imagine Canada, an umbrella group of Canada’s charities, non-profits and social entrepreneurs. Nor does it adhere to the Canadian Council for International Co-operation’s Code of Ethics and Operational Standards.

Organizations delivering international development projects funded by Canadian taxpayers must willingly, transparently and objectively demonstrate their effectiveness to the Canadian public. To properly evaluate WE Charity’s work, external evaluations require more than self-professed good intentions, slick advertisements and carefully crafted mission statements. WE Charity would therefore benefit from researchers having full access to their programs, free from the threat of legal action, to conduct a range of studies, from cost-benefit analyses to participatory evaluations.

As the WE family restructures, it may also wish to consider moving away from “charity” to real development work in low-income countries. WE Charity might also reconsider its name. The term charity in international development circles is often associated with the act of giving goods and services. International development seeks to uncover and address the underlying causes of poverty and inequality with programs that prioritize partnership, local ownership, empowerment, participatory engagement and mutual learning. While most Canadian NGOs dedicated to development are “registered charities” for income tax purposes, they seek to distance themselves from the charity model, applying more appropriate terms such as solidarity or international cooperation to define themselves and the work they do.

Based on what we currently know about WE, and WE Charity in particular, an organizational restructuring is insufficient for addressing its contradictory messaging, problematic practices and international development identity problem.

Rebecca Tiessen is a Professor in the School of International Development and Global Studies and University Chair in Teaching at the University of Ottawa. Photo: WE-branded Kisaruni Secondary School in Kenya, Ryan Bolton.

Used with permission. This article was originally posted on the McLeod Group blog. Rebecca Tiessen is an IBG Advisory member.

‍