Motivations and forms of corporate giving behaviour: insights from Australia

Abstract

Although corporate support for many nonprofit organisations (NPOs) represents only a relatively small component of their overall income its importance is growing. As a consequence, the need to understand corporate giving behaviour in a way that supports the development of strategically targeted and successful marketing campaigns is of growing importance to marketing managers in many NPOs around the globe. This paper presents the findings of a study into the 'why' and 'how' of corporate giving behaviour in Australia. In the seven case studies examined, there was no strong evidence that Australian corporations give for other than strategic profit maximisation or political reasons. In contrast to the literature, altruistic and managerial utility did not emerge as strong motivational factors. This study also found that corporations are likely to have a number of corporate giving programmes each with its own underlying motivation and strategic purpose which network together to form a hierarchy of corporate giving programmes. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of this research for NPO managers attempting to increase their level of corporate support.

Knowledge nodes and international networks of connection: representations of private philanthropy by elite higher education institutions

“…This evidence builds on, but also departs from, the literature on HEIs as centres of calculation, seeking to know and control 'distant others' (Latour, 1987;Driver, 1992;Lambert and Lester, 2004;Jöns, 2009). Arguably, by contributing to knowledge produced by institutions located in the affluent regions, donors who were based -or had family origins -in the South reinforced the elitist position of leading Northern HEIs and perpetuated geographical and social inequalities (Salamon, 1987;Noble et al, 2008;Hopkins, 2011). However, our analysis has indicated that influential networks of transnational alumni were also active in shaping the priorities and research agendas of these same institutions, facilitating initiatives which ostensibly benefited individuals located in the South, and permitted the circulation of new knowledge beyond networks of elite HEIs.…”

“…We found evidence of needs-based provision across a number of Although the gifts were presented as supporting students in 'need', this type of provision was frequently combined with an HEI's imperative to continue to operate at an elite level by seeking out the best 'talent'. As such, the presentation of these donations by HEIs raises questions about the underlying motivations of some universities in promoting equality of access (Noble et al, 2008). Moreover, the emphasis in the above examples on supporting a specific social group within a selected area, led to what Salamon has described as 'philanthropic particularism ' (1987: 39).…”

“…"Thanks to this generous gift, HBS will be able to expand its already robust offerings in executive education, deepening ties with leaders across the country and around the globe." (Harvard University, News, 14 October 2012) In the above two texts, the donors were presented as enhancing the global appeal and connectedness of the already world-renowned universities through the provision of financial support based on student need and facilitating equality of access (Noble et al, 2008;Chiu and Sharfman, 2011). Moreover, the language used in these extracts has been 'socially determined' through the selection of adjectives (Fairclough, 2003: 22), with the Blavatnik gift being described as 'historic' and the school of government as 'Europe's first'.…”

The SE-Asian Tsunami Appeal: disclosure of contributions by corporate Australia

“…A survey conducted in 2001 has shown that one out of every five Australian shareholders value contributing to society above profit making (Ahmad et al, 2009). Noble et al (2008) find strategic, profit maximisation or political motives rather than altruistic or managerial utility motives for corporate philanthropy by Australian firms. Noble et al (2008) have provided useful insight into the broad decision-making structure to be found in Australian firms and have found that the donating decisions after the tsunami would, in general, have been made by a committee, with the effect that agency problems would have been ameliorated.…”

“…The events following this tsunami present a unique opportunity to examine the reporting of philanthropy by Australian corporations, as there was both extensive media coverage of contributing activity and well-publicised pressure on all corporations to reveal their contributions to their shareholders. Whereas corporate giving behaviour and motives have been extensively studied (Adams and Hardwick, 1998;Seifert et al, 2003Seifert et al, , 2004Campbell and Slack, 2006;Noble et al, 2008;Zhang et al, 2010), there is only a small body of literature about patterns of disclosure of corporate philanthropy by Australian firms. Jones (2005) carried out some of the first research in this field without access to data about donation size, while Ahmad et al (2009) look at disclosures to examine corporate philanthropy practices in Australia.…”