Corporate philanthropy communication on donor websites
| Pages | 53-73 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-03-2016-0008 |
| Published date | 13 March 2017 |
| Date | 13 March 2017 |
| Author | Ricardo Chalmeta,Henna Viinikka |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information & communications technology |
Corporate philanthropy
communication on donor websites
Ricardo Chalmeta and Henna Viinikka
Universitat Jaume I, Castello de la Plana, Castelló, Spain
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims to examine whether companies engaging in corporate philanthropy, a
componentof corporate social responsibility (CSR), discloseinformation about such activities publicly on their
websites, analyze whether there is a relation between the kind of charitable giving (in-kind donations or
financial gifts), the number of donation types,or the industry sector the company belongs to, the mentionon
the company websiteand whether there is a relation between communicate companycorporate philanthropy
and communicateother company CSR issues.
Design/methodology/approach –The research methodology was descriptive statistics research
method. The datawere collected during the months of June and July 2013 fromthe websites of 141 companies
that had recentlyengaged in corporate philanthropy.
Findings –The study found that, surprisingly, a considerable portion of companies practicing corporate
philanthropy donot disclose that information on their websites.This was especially the case when donations
were made withproduct instead of in cash.
Originality/value –This study quantifiesthe fact that many companies engage in CSR through corporate
philanthropy but do not communicate those activities to a wider public. This can be seen as a missed
opportunity to take advantageof a variety of positive effects that companies related to CSR benefitfrom. On
the other hand, it can also be interpreted as a missed opportunityfor the NGOs to encourage their donors to
“come out”withtheir philanthropic activities.
Keywords Corporate giving, Corporate philanthropy, Corporate social responsibility,
Corporate philanthropy communication
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Corporate philanthropy can be defined as voluntary and unconditional transfers of cash or
other assets by private firms for public purposes(FASB, 1993). Direct funding of charities is
the most common form of corporate philanthropy, although presently, corporate
philanthropy includes not onlya wide variety of types of “giving”including cash donations
but also other resources like product donations, expertise, long-term support of a concreate
non-profit organization, joint projects with non-profit organizations, corporate foundations
to support public beneficialprojects or organizations and employee volunteering(Kotler and
Lee, 2005). In the past, there were arguments against corporate giving mainly based on the
idea that corporate profits should go to the shareholders or be invested back into the
business (Hatfield, 2015). However at present, what is considered illegitimate is for
corporations not to engage in philanthropicactivities (Seghers, 2007). Therefore, companies’
stakeholders are expected corporate giving (Wang and Qian, 2011). But companies benefit
from corporate giving too because it gives companies new ways of stakeholders
engagement and obtaining some advantage (Porter and Kramer, 2002) such as higher
customer attraction and loyalty; improvement in employee retention, commitment,
motivation, productivity and engagement, reducing a company’s cost of operations;
improvement in brand awareness, public image and corporate reputation; increasing sales;
Corporate
philanthropy
communication
53
Received 31 March 201 6
Revised27 June 2016
Accepted27 June 2016
Journalof Information,
Communicationand Ethics in
Society
Vol.15 No. 1, 2017
pp. 53-73
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1477-996X
DOI 10.1108/JICES-03-2016-0008
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-996X.htm
and supporting a company’s social license to operate (Tonin and Vlassopoulos, 2014;Bae
and Cameron, 2006). Therefore, corporate philanthropy is part of overall business strategy
and should combine both internal and external drivers to ensure companies benefit from
meeting stakeholdersexpectations and bolstering their reputations (Hatfield, 2015).
Corporate philanthropy is a key component of larger concept, corporate social
responsibility (CSR)(Formánková et al., 2015). According to Carroll’s (1991)pyramid of CSR,
the most important activity for businesses is to maintain economic viability. Second,
companies must obey the laws regulating their actions. Third, businesses must be mindful
of ethical practices beyondlegal adherence, to act according to societal expectations.Finally,
corporations have a discretionary function, and philanthropy is the primary discretionary
function of business.CSR seems to be more of a norm than an exception in the current global
marketplace (Kanter, 2011). Consumers’concerns about deteriorating environmental and
social wellbeing are reflected in the way companiesdo business. The notion, represented by
the shareholder model, that a company’s social responsibility is aimed mainly at
safeguarding investors’interests by working to increase profits (Friedman, 1970) has been
challenged by the stakeholder theory (Freeman,1984), which sees a number of other groups
as being valuable to the company and consequently their interests are also deemed worthy
of attention and consideration. Depending on the definition of stakeholders, these groups
can be as close to the company as the employees, providers,contractors and customers, or as
far reached and more difficult to communicate with as the environment at large or future
generations. The term triple bottom line has also become part of mainstream business
language and refers to the idea that companies should produce positive results not only
financially but also environmentallyand socially.
Stakeholders are more frequently starting to pay attention to thiscompany performance
that surpasses classical financial indicators. There is a rise in stakeholders interest toward
companies that give back socially and, for example, that interest translates into a
willingness of customers to pay more for their products and services (Nielsen, 2013;Baksh-
Mohammed et al., 2012). Therefore, the CSR commitments and actions of the company that
are implemented cannot remain internalized within the company. It could therefore be
assumed that if a company is engaged in CSR activities, it will be interested in making that
engagement public. There are proven positive influences to be gained by businesses that
engage in CSR and communicate information aboutit, and there seems to be a proven need
by the public to receive that information.
Company CSR can be communicated to the wider public via different methods. The
financial annual reports have been paired by many companies with annual CSR and
sustainability reports to show in detail the company’s programs and commitment to social
and environmental causes. Company CSR communication usually considers different
categories like the ones established by the Global Reporting Initiative[1](economic,
environmental, labor relations, human rights, society and product responsibility) and other
CSR topics, such as philanthropy or CSR achievements and prizes. Print media and TV
channels in the past and, currently, the internet are the main media used for the companies
for CSR communication. The company website, in most cases, contains information
regarding CSR engagement, and social media channels like Facebook and Twitter are also
used. However, in a recent study by the European Commission (2013a,2013b,2013c), only
slightly over a third (36 per cent) of Europeans said they felt informed about companies’
responsible behavior toward society compared to 62 per cent that said they did not feel
informed. Different studies have been conducted to analyze whether the problem is that
companies are just not communicating CSR activities effectively or whether they are not
communicating them at all. These previous studies have focused on understanding how
JICES
15,1
54
To continue reading
Request your trial