This study investigates financial correlates of corporate philanthropy in Fortune 1000 companies using structural equation modeling. The results suggest that cash flow (one of the most discretionary types of organizational slack) has a significant impact on a firm’s cash donations to charitable causes, but monetary donations do not affect firm financial performance. These findings support the accepted view of corporate philanthropy as a discretionary social responsibility and the traditional thinking about firm giving in the business and society literature—that doing well enables doing good. Contrary to some contemporary thinking, the findings imply no significant effect on profits from corporate generosity.
Adams, M., & Hardwick, P. (1998). An analysis of corporate donations: United Kingdom evidence. Journal of Management Studies, 35(5), 641-654.
2.
Aldrich, N. W., Jr. (2000, December/January). America’s most generous companies. Worth Magazine, pp. 143-158.
3.
American Association of Fundraising Counsel. (2002, June 20). Charitable giving reaches $212billion [Press Release]. Retrieved October 25,2002, from www.aafrc.org/press3.html
4.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33-46.
5.
Atkinson, L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (1988). Stock ownership and company contributions to charity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 82-100.
6.
Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.
7.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
8.
Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another?Journal of the Academy of Market Science, 28(2), 248-262.
9.
Bartkus, B. R., Morris, S. A., & Seifert, B. (2002). Governance and corporate philanthropy: Restraining Robin Hood?Business & Society, 41(3), 319-344.
10.
Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488-506.
11.
Boatsman, J. R., & Gupta, S. (1996). Taxes and corporate charity: Empirical evidence from micro-level panel data. National Tax Journal, 49(2), 193-213.
12.
Bourgeois, L. J., III. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 29-39.
13.
Bowen, F. E. (2000). Does size matter? Organisational slack and visibility as alternative explanations for environmental responsiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
14.
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2002, August). The composition of organizational slack and the nature of corporate community involvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO.
15.
Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. (1999). Beyond resources: The mediating effects of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. Business & Society, 38(2), 167-187.
16.
Carrigan, M. (1997). The great corporate give-away—Can marketing do good for the “do-gooders?”European Business Journal, 9(4), 40-46.
17.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505.
18.
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48.
19.
Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
20.
Chrisman, J. J., & Carroll, A. B. (1984). Corporate responsibility: Reconciling economic and social goals. Sloan Management Review, 25(2), 59-65.
21.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22.
Drucker, P. F. (1984). Converting social problems into business opportunities: The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 26(2), 53-63.
23.
File, K. M., & Prince, R. A. (1998). Cause related marketing and corporate philanthropy in the privately held enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1529-1539.
24.
Fry, L. W., Keim, G. D., & Meiners, R. E. (1982). Corporate contributions: Altruistic or for-profit?Academy of Management Journal, 25(1), 94-106.
25.
Galaskiewicz, J. (1997). An urban grants economy revisited: Corporate charitable contributions in the Twin Cities, 1979-81, 1987-89. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 445-471.
26.
Greenley, G. E., & Oktemgil, M. (1998). A comparison of slack resources in high and low performing British companies. Journal of Management Studies, 35(3), 377-398.
27.
Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36(1), 5-31.
28.
Hambrick, D. (1983). High profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: A contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 687-707.
29.
Hunt, A. R. (2000, December 21). Charitable giving: Good but we can do better. Wall Street Journal, p. A19.
30.
Jones, R., & Murrell, A. J. (2001). Signaling positive corporate social performance. Business & Society, 40(1), 59-78.
31.
Lang, L., Stulz, R. M., & Walking, R. A. (1991). A test of the free cash flow hypothesis. Journal of Financial Economics, 29, 315-335.
32.
Langley, M. (1999, November 18). CEO’s crusade aims to raise corporate gifts. Wall Street Journal, p. B1.
33.
Lehn, K., & Poulsen, A. (1989). Free cash flow and stockholder gains in going private transactions. Journal of Finance, 44, 771-789.
34.
Maignan, I. (2001). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(1), 57-72.
35.
McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854-872.
36.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification?Strategic Management Journal, 21(5),603-610.
37.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127.
38.
Mescon, T. S., & Tilson, D. J. (1987). Corporate philanthropy: A strategic approach to the bottom-line. California Management Review, 29(2), 49-61.
39.
Miles, R. H. (1987). Managing the corporate social environment: A grounded theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
40.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
41.
Navarro, P. (1988). Why do corporations give to charity?Journal of Business, 61, 65-93.
42.
Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation?Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1245-1264.
43.
O’Neill, H. M., Saunders, C. B., & McCarthy, A. D. (1989). Board members, corporate social responsiveness and profitability: Are tradeoffs necessary?Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 353-357.
44.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
45.
PNN Online. (2002, January 22). Giving USA reveals trends in corporate giving. Retrieved April 10, 2002, from http://pnnonline.org/corporate_giving/trends012202.asp
46.
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
47.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56-68.
48.
Preston, L. E., & O’Bannon, D. P. (1997). The corporate social-financial performance relationship. Business & Society, 36(4), 419-429.
49.
Rowley, T., & Berman, S. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39(4), 397-418.
50.
Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy: When corporate charity “begins at home.”Business & Society, 42(2), 169-201.
51.
Sama, L. M. (1998). An analysis of the determinants of corporate social response strategies: The constraining and enabling effects of external market-based conditions and internal governance factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, New York.
52.
Sanchez, C. M. (2000). Motives for corporate philanthropy in El Salvador: Altruism and political legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 363-375.
53.
Sharfman, M. P., Wolf, G., Chase, R. B., & Tansik, D. A. (1988). Antecedents of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 601-614.
54.
Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681-697.
55.
Singh, J. (1986). Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 562-585.
56.
Smith, C. (1994). The new corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 72(3), 105-116.
57.
St. Clair, L., & Tschirhart, M. (2002, August). The influence of slack in human resources on community service through the workplace. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO.
58.
Thayer, C. (2003, May 23). Profiles and interviews: Rough waters ahead for foundations. Retrieved October 6, 2003, from http://onphilanthropy.com/articles/print.aspx?cid=383
59.
Thorne, D., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2003). Business and society: A strategic approach to corporate citizenship. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
60.
Ullmann, A. A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationships among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of U.S. firms. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 540-557.
61.
Useem, M. (1988). Market and institutional factors in corporate contributions. California Management Review, 30(2), 77-88.
62.
Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: Coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58-74.
63.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303-319.
64.
Wang, J., & Coffey, B. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 771-778.
65.
Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3(3), 229-267.
