The implications of the organizational alternatives of corporate philanthropy are yet to be properly understood. This is particularly the case when contributions are channeled through corporate foundations, instead of going directly to nonprofit organizations independent from the firm. Data on the resources, undertakings, and effects of corporate foundations are scarce; conceptualization is poor; and their rationale has been mainly explored from the perspective of the potential benefits for the company. This study aims at contributing to conceptual debate and empirical research on corporate foundations from the perspective of how well they perform as nonprofits. The performance of corporate and noncorporate foundations is compared across three different productivity indicators, based on a survey to a representative sample of 325 foundations. Results of linear regression models suggest that, all else equal, corporate foundations have a greater capability to make resources available for charitable purposes with lower levels of human and financial inputs.
Alberg-SeberichM. (2010). Foundations, Corporate. In AnheierH.ToeplerS. (Eds.) International encyclopedia of civil society. New York, NY: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-93996-4_151.
2.
ArmstrongJ. S.OvertonT. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396-402.
3.
AustinJ. E.SeitanidiM. M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 726-758.
4.
BethmannS.Von SchnurbeinG. (2015). Effective governance of corporate foundations (CEPS Working Paper Series, No. 8). Basel, Switzerland: Center for Philanthropy Studies [CEPS].
5.
BrownW. A. (2010). Strategic management. In RenzD. O.HermanR. D. (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit management and leadership (3rd ed.) (pp. 206-229). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
6.
The Center for High Impact Philanthropy. (2007). What is high impact philanthropy?Philadelphia, PA: Author.
7.
ChikotoG. L.NeelyD. G. (2014). Building nonprofit financial capacity: The impact of revenue concentration and overhead costs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 570-588.
8.
CooneyK. (2006). The institutional and technical structuring of nonprofit ventures: Case study of a U.S. hybrid organization caught between two fields. Voluntas, 17, 137-155.
9.
European Commission (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Renewed EU strategy on Corporate Social Responsibility for 2011-2014. Brussels: EC, October10th.
10.
European Foundation Centre. (2008). Foundations in the European Union: Facts and figures. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
11.
FeliuN.BoteroI. C. (2016). Philanthropy in family enterprises: A review of literature. Family Business Review, 29, 121-141.
Foundation Center. (2012). Key facts on corporate foundations. New York, NY: Author.
14.
Foundation Center. (2014). Key facts on U.S. foundations. New York, NY: Author.
15.
FroelichK. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 246-268.
16.
FrumkinP.KeatingE. K. (2011). Diversification reconsidered: The risks and rewards of revenue concentration. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2, 151-164.
17.
Fundación Promigas & Fundación DIS. (2012). Las fundaciones empresariales en Colombia: Una aproximación a su estructura y dinámicas [Corporate foundations in Colombia: approaching their structure and dynamics]. Bogotá: Asociación de las Fundaciones Empresariales de Colombia.
18.
GautierA.PacheA. C. (2015). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 343-369.
19.
GodfreyP. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 30, 777-798.
20.
HarrisM. E. (2012). Nonprofits and business: Toward a subfield of nonprofit studies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 892-902.
KoushyarJ.LonghoferW.RobertsP. W. (2015). A comparative analysis of corporate and independent foundations. Sociological Science, 2, 582-596.
23.
KreutzerK.JägerU. (2011). Volunteering versus managerialism: Conflict over organizational identity in voluntary associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 634-661.
24.
LeRouxK.WrightN. S. (2010). Does performance measurement improve strategic decision making? Findings from a national survey of nonprofit social service agencies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 571-587.
25.
LiketK. C.Rey-GarciaM.MaasK. (2014). Why aren’t evaluations working and what to do about it: A framework for negotiating meaningful evaluation in nonprofits. American Journal of Evaluation, 35, 171-188.
26.
LiketK. C.SimaensA. (2015). Battling the devolution in the research of corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 285-308.
27.
LimT. (2010). Measuring the value of corporate philanthropy: Social impact, business benefits, and investor returns. New York, NY: Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy.
28.
MinciulloM.PedriniM. (2014). Transfer to transform. Leveraging firm’s knowledge to mold corporate foundation’s effectiveness. In GnanL.HinnaA.MonteduroF. (Eds.), Mechanisms, roles and consequences of governance: Emerging issues (pp. 181-203). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
29.
MitchellG. E. (2012). The construct of organizational effectiveness: Perspectives from leaders of international nonprofits in the United States. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 324-345.
30.
NeuhoffA.SearleR. (2008). More bang for the buck. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6, 33-37.
31.
NichollsA. (2009). “We do good things, don’t we?” Blended value accounting in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 755-769.
32.
OstrowerF. (2006). Foundation approaches to effectiveness: A typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 510-516.
33.
PacheA. C.SantosF. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 972-1001.
34.
PedriniM.MinciulloM. (2011). Italian corporate foundations and the challenge of multiple stakeholder interests. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22, 173-197.
35.
PetrovitsC. M. (2006). Corporate-sponsored foundations and earnings management. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 41, 335-362.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
38.
Productivity Commission. (2010). Contribution of the not-for-profit sector. Melbourne, Australia: Author.
39.
Prophil. (2015). Shareholder foundations: The first European study. Paris, France: Author.
40.
Rey-GarciaM. (2012). Beyond corporate social responsibility: Foundations and global retailers (Documentos de trabajo de la Cátedra Fundación Ramón Areces de Distribución Comercial [DOCFRADIS], 1206). Retrieved from http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ovr:docfra:1206
41.
Rey-GarciaM.Alvarez-GonzálezL. I. (2011). Foundations and social economy: Conceptual approaches and socio-economic relevance. Ciriec-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 73, 61-80.
SowaJ. E.Coleman SeldenS.SandfortJ. R. (2004). No longer unmeasurable? A multidimensional integrated model of nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 711-728.
44.
ThomsenS.RoseC. (2004). Foundation ownership and financial performance: Do companies need owners?European Journal of Law and Economics, 18, 343-364.
45.
UrriolagoitiaL.VernisA. (2012). May the economic downturn affect corporate philanthropy? Exploring the contribution trends in Spanish and U.S. companies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 759-785.
46.
VahlpahlT. (2011). Professionalization of foundation management: Is it really more than hiring someone with a degree?Trust and Trustees, 17(6), 482-487.
47.
VaidyanathanB. (2008). Corporate giving: A literature review. Notre Dame, IN: Center for the Study of Religion and Society, University of Notre Dame.
48.
WesthuesM.EinwillerS. (2006). Corporate foundations: Their role for corporate social responsibility. Corporate Reputation Review, 9, 144-153.
