MASTER THESIS

Maastricht University School of Business and Economics Maastricht, 16-12-2009 Heuvel, F.A.M., van den ID number: I336033 Study: International Business Concentration: Accounting Writing assignment: Master Thesis Supervisors: L. Bollen T. Thijssens

Acknowledgements After some years pleasantly studying at Maastricht University, this Master Thesis was my final and biggest challenge to complete my study International Business, concentrating on Accounting. In this part of my thesis I would like to thank the following persons.

First of all I would like to thank my thesis supervisors, Laury Bollen and Thomas Thijssens, for their guidance during the writing of my Master Thesis. Their relevant research experience provided me with useful insights which I could incorporate in this study.

I also would like to thank * for giving me the possibility to write my master thesis at their offices. Special thanks to * who was always helpful and interested in my thesis. I am really looking forward to start my career at * in September 2010.

Additionally, I would like to thank all seven company representatives who were willing to participate in the interviews. It was very interesting to hear all their different ideas on philanthropy. Their openness on the companys strategy and procedures was a great help to me.

And last but not least I would like to thank my parents, family and friends. They have helped and motivated me throughout my studies. Furthermore, they have made my student life a time I would never forget.

Femke van den Heuvel December 14, 2009

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

Table of Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Philanthropy ..................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 From Corporate Social Responsibility to Strategic Philanthropy .................................... 5 2.2 Strategy implementation .................................................................................................. 8 2.3 Philanthropy strategy implementation ........................................................................... 10 3. Research Method .................................................................................................................. 11 4. Results and Analysis ............................................................................................................ 14 4.0 Revised Philanthropy Strategy Matrix ........................................................................... 14 4.1 Emergent Philanthropy Strategy .................................................................................... 17 4.2 Related Philanthropy Strategy ........................................................................................ 18 4.3 Adaptive Philanthropy Strategy ..................................................................................... 19 4.4 Social Partnership ........................................................................................................... 21 4.5 Philanthropy Strategy Matrix ......................................................................................... 22 5. Conclusion, limitations and further research........................................................................ 22 References ................................................................................................................................ 24 Appendix 1: Questionnaire....................................................................................................... 27 Appendix 2: Results interviews conducted .............................................................................. 29

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

Abstract This research examines if the philanthropy strategy matrix developed by Thijssens, Heil, Bollen and Hassink (2009a) corresponds with corporate practice. Their philanthropy strategy matrix is based on two values, (1) if there is a relation between a companys core business and the beneficiaries supported and (2) the number of non-profit partners. With the use of a questionnaire based on the 7-S model of Waterman, Peters, and Philips (1980) interviews with company representatives of seven different companies were conducted. The results indicate that the value number of non-profit partners should be changed into the motivation to be engaged in philanthropy. Furthermore, the results confirm the existence of different philanthropy strategies in corporate practice. 1. Introduction For years, organisations engage in corporate giving, which is also known as corporate philanthropy. Other than the name suggests corporate philanthropy is most of the time not purely altruistic. More often companies engage in philanthropy to meet strategic objectives (Smith, 1994; McAlister & Ferrell, 2002; Porter & Kramer, 2002; Ricks & Williams, 2005; Campbell & Slack, 2008). The term strategic philanthropy is then more applicable, meaning that a corporation voluntarily donates a portion of the companys profit or resources to a nonprofit organisation and this donation not only benefits the general public but also the donating organisation (Laarhoven, 2008) (Thijssens et al., 2009a).

Based on 1) the relatedness of the social cause supported with the core business of the donating company and 2) the diversification of non-profit partners, Thijssens et al. (2009a) developed a philanthropy strategy matrix, in which they make a distinction between four different philanthropy strategies. Since the study of Thijssens et al. (2009a) was the first in discussing different philanthropy strategies, it would be interesting to study these different strategies more carefully. The philanthropy matrix makes it possible to classify companies by their philanthropy strategy and therefore companies with different philanthropy strategies can be compared. Existing philanthropy literature explains a companys giving behaviour by external company characteristics, such as company size, industry, and nationality. To date there is no research that examines philanthropy in corporate practice. This study fills part of the gap since it explores, with the use of the philanthropy matrix, whether the suggested typology corresponds to corporate practice, by empirically investigating to what extent

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

companies consciously choose one of the suggested philanthropy strategies. To assess how philanthropy is managed within companies a framework developed by Waterman et al. (1980) will be used. This framework contains 7 elements i.e. strategy, structure, systems, style, staff, skills and super ordinate goals, which help to determine how philanthropy is managed within a company.

This research will use a case study approach based on semi-structured interviews with the most knowledgeable managers on philanthropy of seven different companies. This study contributes to the academic literature on philanthropy in different ways. As the first case study performed on philanthropy strategies, it will provide new insights on the theories developed. Additionally, a better understanding of how companies adopted a certain philanthropy strategy will aid future research on the effectiveness of different philanthropy strategies (Thijssens et al., 2009a). For charities this research is useful since they get a better understanding of how companies make a selection between different charities, which helps them to optimize their fund raising strategy. For companies which do not have a philanthropy strategy yet, it could be helpful to understand how other companies manage its philanthropy strategy.

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. In chapter two, the literature on corporate philanthropy, with a special focus on strategic philanthropy, and strategy is discussed. Subsequently, the research design is introduced in chapter three. Chapter four provides the main findings from the interviews conducted. The conclusions, limitations and suggestions for future research are provided in chapter five.

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

2. Literature Review 2.0 Philanthropy Philanthropy is seen as one element of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Carroll, 1979; Brammer and Millington, 2008). There is a variety of literature available on philanthropy, but recently strategic philanthropy grasps the attention of researchers. Existing literature classifies philanthropy as strategic when the giving of corporate resources benefits the recipient and simultaneously helps the company to achieve its strategic objectives (McAlister and Ferrell, 2002; Saiia, Carroll & Buchholtz, 2003; Ricks and Williams, 2005; Campbell and Slack, 2008). Thus, strategic philanthropy has a dual objective of corporate value added and charitable benevolence (Campbell and Slack, 2008, p.188). It is necessary to make a distinction between strategic philanthropy and philanthropy strategy. A philanthropy strategy simply means that the firm is orderly in the methods and procedures it uses to give away money (Saiia et al., 2003, p.185). The next section discusses the current literature on different philanthropy strategies and also explains when a philanthropy strategy is classified as strategic. The second part of this chapter puts emphasis on strategy implementation. 2.1 From Corporate Social Responsibility to Strategic Philanthropy CSR assumes that companies, next to maximizing profits, also have some responsibility to society. Carroll (1979) divides social responsibility in four different categories, which are economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary (philanthropic) responsibilities that organisations have to society. At first sight these responsibilities seem quite contradictory. Especially the economic and philanthropic responsibilities appear conflicting with one another (Carroll, 1991). However, also philanthropy can cause an increase in a companys economic

performance in the long-run (Porter and Kramer, 2002). If companies develop philanthropy strategies, donating can be done more effectively and efficiently and this is beneficial for both the company and the recipient charity (Thijssens et al., 2009a). To determine if philanthropy is strategic it has to be clear whether donations made to charities also help to achieve strategic goals. Porter and Kramer (2002) state that charitable efforts can improve the quality of a companys business environment and a companys image, therefore charitable donations can give a company a competitive advantage. By gaining a competitive advantage, social and economic goals are better aligned, and according to Porter and Kramer (2002) this is when philanthropy should be classified as strategic. Saiia et al. (2003) find that strategic

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

philanthropy is achieved when a firm seeks to support societal problems or issues that are related to the core values and mission of the firm. This is also inline with Thijssens et al. (2009a, p.4) stating that strategic philanthropy is characterised by donations related to a companys core business. Another point of view on the definition of strategic philanthropy is the selection of nonprofit partners. Donating companies can choose from many different charities. Simon (1995) states that it is unrealistic that a company is able to monitor all non-profit field operations and that current consumers prefer long-term philanthropic commitments. Taken this into account it is advisable that companies consider the different charities carefully. Therefore Thijssens et al. (2009a) expect companies engaged in strategic philanthropy to only have a small number of non-profit partners. The reason for this is that the selection of non-profit partners is very difficult, and therefore it is hard to obtain correct data to evaluate the different philanthropic causes (Lowell, Silverman & Taliento, 2001). Thijssens et al. (2009a) argue that companies engaged in strategic philanthropy perform a focused strategy, meaning that the number of non-profit partners is restricted. Companies that support many different philanthropic causes are not classified as strategic since there is a lack of focus and there is no clear philanthropy strategy.

As seen, based on the link between a companys core business and its donations, and the number of philanthropic causes supported, philanthropy can be classified as strategic. Thijssens et al. (2009a) developed a philanthropy strategy matrix which incorporates those two elements. In figure 1 the matrix with its four different quadrants is displayed.

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

High

Related philanthropy (related, unfocussed)

Strategic philanthropy (related, focussed)

Level of Relatedness Ad-Hoc philanthropy (unrelated, unfocussed) Low Partnership philanthropy (unrelated, focussed)

High

Number of nonProfit partners

Low

Figure 1: Philanthropy Strategy Matrix

Each of the quadrants represents a different philanthropy strategy, all are explained hereafter. An ad-hoc philanthropic strategy is one where donations are diversified and have no relation to the core business of a company. Companies in this quadrant thus donate incidentally to many different social causes, although organisations in this quadrant can perceive philanthropy as important their donating pattern does not qualify as strategic. Since their donations do not help the company to achieve strategic objectives. A partnership philanthropic strategy is aimed at establishing close relationships with a limited number of non-profit partners, so a focused strategy. However, the non-profit partners do not have to be related to the donating companys core business, so no related strategy. Companies with a partnership strategy try to show stakeholders that they have strategically determined which causes are supported. A partnership strategy cannot be classified as strategic philanthropy since the donations made do not have a relation to the companys core business. Opposite of this strategy is the related philanthropic strategy. Organisations in this quadrant donate to diverse social causes but all those causes are related to the donating organisations core business. Again this strategy cannot be classified as strategic philanthropy since there is a lack of focus. If companies establish both a focused and a related philanthropic strategy,

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

philanthropy can be classified as strategic. Companies with this type of strategy align social and strategic goals the best and therefore this strategy is defined as strategic philanthropy. (Thijssens et al., 2009a)

The study of Thijssens et al. (2009a) was the first in discussing different philanthropic strategies. To get a better insight into these strategies further research is needed. Therefore, this study will explore how the suggested typology corresponds to corporate practice. Hence, the following section discusses literature on strategy implementation. 2.2 Strategy implementation Mintzberg (1987) defines strategy as consistency in behaviour and this behaviour can be intended or emergent. When a plan is developed and implemented throughout the whole organisation strategy is intended. An emergent strategy is a strategy that evolves because of patterns in behaviour which eventually become the guidelines that determine decisions in the future (Mintzberg, 1987). Dobni (2003) states that nowadays it is not the formulation of strategies but the implementation of strategies that forms the biggest challenge. Grant (2005) also states that the formulation of a strategy should not be separated from the implementation of a strategy since that would make the strategy worthless. To implement a strategy, different factors should be taken into account. First of all company structure should be aligned with strategy. Structure forms the foundation of a company since it is the way of how company activities are organised (Pearce and Robinson, 2005). Grant (2005) argues that a company structure always has some kind of hierarchy. Grant (2005) makes a distinction between three types of structures. The first one, Functional Structure, is the most centralized form of organising. For this structure it is the CEO and top management who have most of the control and decisions cannot be made by individual functions. The Multidivisional Structure emerged since companies became too complex to be controlled centrally. Furthermore, there was a need for decentralized decision making. The final structure described by Grant (2005) is the Matrix Structure. All organisations that formalize coordination and control across multiple dimensions encompass this type of structure. Next to structure, organisational leadership plays a role when implementing a strategy (Pearce and Robinson, 2005). This means that an organisation needs managers who give direction to the implemented strategy and who provide staff with the necessary skills to comply with the outlined strategy. Next to those two factors Pearce and Robinson (2005) find that organisational culture plays a major role when implementing a strategy. Culture in an organisation determines the shared values that create
Master Thesis Femke van den Heuvel 8

how individuals react to certain situations. Since culture has an influence on the opinions and actions of employees culture has control over how a strategy is executed.

7-S model As seen a strategy can be intended or emergent, but a strategy is only effective when all resources within a company are uniform and consistent in their behaviour. As explained there are several variables that have to be taken into account when looking at strategy implementation. There are various frameworks that discuss the implementation of strategies and these frameworks also incorporate various variables. One of the most appreciated frameworks and which includes most of the variables discussed is the one of Waterman et al. (1980). Their 7-S model incorporates seven variables: structure, strategy, systems, staff, style, skills and shared values. They state that all those factors should work together to create an effective organisation. This framework will form the basis for this research and the explanatory variables used in this study are than also based on the 7-S model. The different elements of the 7-S framework describe the underlying processes, structures and systems of philanthropy strategies in the following manner:

Structure: This variable explains how an organisation is organised. Structure gives coordination and divides different tasks (Waterman et al., 1980). The implication of structure for this study is to see how philanthropy is positioned within an organisation and what management layers are involved and responsible. (Thijssens, Bollen and Hassink, 2009b).

Strategy: The element of strategy refers to the actions that a company plans in response to or in anticipation of changes in its external environment, its customers, and its competitors (Waterman et al., 1980). With respect to strategy this study will look for which philanthropy strategy a company classifies, and how this strategy is visible in the organisation.

Systems: refers to all the procedures, formal and in-formal, that help the organisation to function on a daily basis (Waterman et al., 1980). In relation to philanthropy it will be about the existence of systems that assist in selecting different philanthropic causes.

Style: Is the variable about a companys culture and its ability to change (Waterman et al., 1980). In this study style is about how the philanthropy strategy is coordinated and

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

how communication among the persons involved in philanthropy takes place (Thijssens et al., 2009b). Staff: relates to the employees of the company in the sense of: people as a pool of resources to be nurtured, developed, guarded, and allocated (Waterman et al., 1980). With respect to staff this study will look at how many employees in the organisation are involved with philanthropy and what their functions are. Skills: Refers to the companys crucial attributes (Waterman et al., 1980). Within this study, skills relates to the educational background of employees working on philanthropy. Super-ordinate goals: This element is about the guiding concepts of an organisation. Super-ordinate goals go beyond the formal statement of corporate objectives (Waterman et al., 1980). In this research, this variable helps to identify the most important reasons for organisations to engage in philanthropy. Also, it will look at how awareness is created within the organisations and amongst employees. (Thijssens et al., 2009b) 2.3 Philanthropy strategy implementation The article of Simon (1995) looks specifically at how a philanthropy strategy should be implemented in a company. Simon states that also for philanthropy strategy it is important to have a special philanthropy mission, implementation plan and strategy evaluation plan. According to Simon the mission of a philanthropy strategy should be based on the companys structure and culture. For the strategy implementation phase the first step is to select nonprofit partner(s) which should be screened by various criteria. Also strategy evaluation is important, companies should measure the effectiveness of the donations made. All those criteria make a good philanthropy strategy according to Simon (1995). Existing literature thus has described a philanthropy strategy implementation framework. However, there is no empirical literature that looks at how different philanthropy strategies work in corporate practice. To get better insights in the development of philanthropy strategies, research on the implementation of these strategies is necessary. Therefore, this research will explore if the four different philanthropy strategies identified by Thijssens et al. (2009a) are present in companies, and if the different strategies exist what the most important strategy characteristics are. Hence the research question is: What are the most important strategy characteristics of the various philanthropy strategies.

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

10

3. Research Method This chapter will discuss the research method, sample selection and the data collection process. Furthermore, this chapter incorporates an explanation of the research instrument used.

This exploratory research used a case study approach to get an insight into how organisations implemented their philanthropy strategy. Especially in new topic areas a case study research is appropriate (Eisenhardt, 1989). Since strategic philanthropy is a topic that is researched only recently and also no case study on this topic have been performed a case study approach is highly suitable. This case study consists of seven semi-structured interviews with the most knowledgeable company representatives on philanthropy. The selection of companies was based on two factors, whether or not the companies used a focused and whether a related philanthropy strategy. Since there are four different quadrants in the philanthropy strategy matrix, the aim was to find two companies representing every quadrant to make the results of the interviews comparable. Therefore the sample was not randomly selected but selected to achieve this goal. Websites of companies were analysed to identify if a company matches the criteria of a certain philanthropy strategy. Most websites informed about what type of charities the company supports, and also if only one or a few beneficiaries are supported this was often mentioned. For example the website of Sara Lee, a company which is mainly involved with food and beverages, states about its philanthropic activities the following:

Promote helping those in need with product donations, food recovery assistance, womens self-sufficiency initiatives, and school nutrition programs. (Retrieved from www.saralee-de.com)

Based on this it is clear that there is a link between the companys core business and the donations made. Another example is the website of Aegon where the following is stated:

In 2008, AEGON formed a new global partnership with Right To Play to help children in deprived areas of Sudan, Uganda, Ghana and China. AEGON donated EUR 1 million as part of a three-year partnership with the international humanitarian organization. (Retrieved from www.aegon.com)

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

11

This shows that the company probably has a partnership philanthropy strategy since one specific charity is supported with a large amount of money. Because of this kind of information on company websites it was possible to select companies that would probably fit in a certain quadrant. The company was then contacted by telephone. If a company was interested in participating in the research an e-mail with an explanation of the purpose, method and planning of the research was send together with a request to provide the contact details of the most knowledgeable manager responsible for philanthropy within the company. The final sample consisted of seven companies as for the partnership quadrant no second company interview could be arranged (see table 1). Since the definitive classification of a company could only be determined ex-post, the initial classification of a company could differ from the final classification.

During six weeks semi-structured interviews were carried out face-to-face on the premises of the companies. One telephone interview was held since there was no opportunity to meet face-to-face. The interviews were recorded and the recordings were transcribed on the same day. All interviews lasted between 45 minutes to 75 minutes. Since confidentiality was

guaranteed to the participating companies the company names have been exchanged with alphabetical characters. Company Position Business Philanthropy strategy
Related

CR-Officer

Company A is a big four firm engaged in assurance tax and consultancy. Company B is a public company engaged in life insurance, pensions and investments. Company C is a private company engaged in financial services Company D is a public company engaged in logistics Company E is a private company engaged in the development, distribution and sale of juvenile products. Company F is a public company, producing and manufacturing aluminium.

Chief Officer Sponsoring and Events

Strategic

Corporate Director of General Affairs Controller Philanthropy Department

Focused

Strategic

Related

CFO

Communication Manager Northern Europe

Passive

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

12

Program manager Netherlands

Company G is a non-listed company operating in the financial sector.

Passive

Table 1: Sample descriptives

7-S Model The results of the interviews will be described following the four different quadrants. As mentioned in chapter two the interviews were based on the 7-S framework and this framework, consisting of seven different elements, helps to determine the implementation of the four different philanthropy strategies and its characteristics. A short explanation of the seven different elements is required before describing the results. The structure element incorporates two distinctive aspects, the position of philanthropy within the company and the concentration of authority. The position within company describes how philanthropy is represented within the company and the concentration of authority shows how different responsibilities are balanced within the companies. As discussed, strategy can be intended or emergent. Therefore the strategy element will examine if the companies have an intended or an emergent strategy. The style element consists out of two elements, level of coordination and means of communication. Level of coordination is about who is responsible for the coordination of philanthropic activities. The element of means of communication describes how communication takes place within the company. The systems aspect is about all the procedures that take place within a company with regard to philanthropy. A closer look on information systems and effectiveness measurement is performed. An information system examines if, and what kind of information systems are in place. Effectiveness measurement looks if and how the companies measure the effectiveness of their donation for either the company or the project supported. The skills element discusses the specific skills a company has. The most important in this respect is the diversity of expertise which examines the professional background of, and training opportunities for the employees. The element of staff focuses on group composition e.g. number of employees working on philanthropy, job descriptions. The final element to discuss is the super-ordinate goals of the companies. This element will take a closer look at how awareness for philanthropy is created within the company and also what the reason for a company is to be engaged in philanthropic activities.

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

13

4. Results and Analysis This section describes the results of the study based on the seven interviews conducted. These seven interviews were based on the 7-S framework. This framework was translated into a questionnaire with 34 open-ended questions which was used during the interviews. The interviews intended to reveal whether the suggested typology by Thijssens et al. (2009a) corresponds to corporate practice. Therefore, this section provides the first evidence of the existence of different philanthropy strategies. 4.0 Revised Philanthropy Strategy Matrix The initial philanthropy strategy classification made by Thijssens et al. (2009a) was based on the relation between a companys core business and the donations made, and the dispersion of donated money and resources. The level of concentration was assessed by means of a Herfindahl-index. This index is intended to measure the concentration of companies in a certain industry. The market share of different companies is squared and the sum of this results in an index number that shows how concentrated the market is. (Baumol and Blinder, 2006) For this research the Herfindahl-index is appropriate since the market share of various beneficiaries of one company can be measured reliable. The reason for this is that in the interviews the company representatives told how many beneficiaries are supported and which part of the budget those beneficiaries receive. The index number from the Herfindahlindex determines in this context the concentration of beneficiaries. The following formula is used to determine the Herfindahl-index:

The application of this formula for the different companies results in the index numbers indicated in figure 2. An index number of 0 indicates that the companys donations are fully dispersed, where an index number of 1 signals that donations are made to only one beneficiary. An index number of 0,20 or higher indicates already that donations are made with a certain focus on one or several beneficiaries (Weinstock, 1982). Therefore company C and D can be classified as extremely focused and also company B has a focused philanthropy strategy. The index numbers of the other companies are too low to classify as focussed and are therefore companies with dispersed donations.

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

14

High

Company A: 0,12
Company E: 0,16

Company B: 0,22
Company D: 0,47

Level of Relatedness Company F: 0,19

Company G: 0,01

Company C: 0,46

Low

High

Number of nonProfit partners

Low

Figure 2: Herfindahl-Index

Based on the level of relatedness and the number of non-profit partners supported companies A till G could all be placed in this matrix. However, the philanthropy strategies of companies placed in the same quadrant did not always have similar characteristics. Therefore, the seven individual strategies were studied separately to see what specific characteristics were present. Next similar strategies were grouped to distinguish the driving forces behind them. From this the following matrix arose (figure 3).

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

15

High

Related Strategy

Social Partnership

Level of Relatedness Emergent Strategy Low Adaptive Strategy

Altruistic

Motivation for Philanthropy

Enlightened Self-interest

Figure 3: Revised philanthropy strategy matrix

The vertical axis is the same as in the matrix developed by Thijssens et al. (2009a) and represents the level of relatedness. Though, the horizontal axis of Thijssens et al. represents the number of non-profit partners in this new matrix this axis explains if a company also has a strategic reason to be engaged in philanthropy. From the interviews it became clear that the number of non-profit partners is not a good measure to classify philanthropy strategies. For one company focussing on one or a few beneficiaries is indeed strategic, but for another company diversified donating is more strategic. For example company F and G donate to many different causes; for them this is strategic since this type of donating fits with the companies structure. Company C has a focused philanthropy strategy but this is not because this will result in more benefits for the company, it was just an ad-hoc development. Therefore, a new measure on the horizontal axis was eligible. What was striking from the interviews was that the reason for companies to engage in philanthropic activities could be divided into two different groups. One group of companies simply wants to be social responsible, thus have a more pure altruistic reason. The other group of companies also donate to help the general public but next to this the reason they mention also incorporates an aspect that shows how philanthropy could be beneficial for the company. This is also what the definition of strategic philanthropy states, i.e. the voluntary donating of a portion of the

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

16

companys profit or resources to a non-profit organisation where this donation not only benefits the general public but also the donating organisation (Laarhoven, 2008; Thijssens et al., 2009a). Therefore, the horizontal axis of the revised philanthropy strategy matrix shows if the reason for philanthropy can be classified as enlightened self-interest. 4.1 Emergent Philanthropy Strategy The emergent philanthropy strategy quadrant is the quadrant where donations are made for a pure altruistic reason. As in this quadrant the reason to be engaged in philanthropy is purely altruistic and there is no relation between the core business of the company and the beneficiaries supported. This strategy would also not classify as strategic philanthropy since a company following this type of strategy will not benefit from the donations made. This type of strategy is called emergent since companies in this quadrant have noticed the importance of donating however the specific philanthropy strategy is still evolving. When a strategy is fully determined and implemented companies in this quadrant will move to one of the three other quadrants. This is also indicated by the arrows in figure 3.

Company C would classify for this type of philanthropy strategy, because the reason for company C to donate resources is that the company is a profit making company and therefore it has resources available to help charities which do not have those resources available. Furthermore, the beneficiaries company C supports do not have to have a link with the core business of the company. What is typical is that company C has an ad-hoc strategy. There is no formal philanthropy mission and strategy formulated one or more years ahead. There are no real target beneficiaries, beneficiary relations seem to have developed in a way that was convenient for the company. Ease of access to the beneficiary seems to have been more important than the reason to support the specific beneficiary. Furthermore, company C does not keep track of the donations made and because of this the amount donated is unknown. There is no department that coordinates the philanthropic activities and the total FTE devoted on philanthropy is only 0,5 to 1 FTE. Although there is no formal strategy company C does see the importance of having a clear philanthropy strategy. Therefore, company C wants to change its current emergent strategy into a more formal one. Not just donating money but take a better look at which beneficiaries are supported, also the coordination of the philanthropic activities should be differently arranged and next to donating money, company C maybe wants to donate manpower in the future. The company representative stated:

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

17

In the future we want to support beneficiaries with the use of our core competences, which is finance. Therefore, we plan to support beneficiaries with financial products.

This is corresponding to the proposed philanthropy strategies matrix. Currently company C has an emergent strategy where nothing is formalised yet. However, in the future company C will have a more formal strategy and company C will thus move to one of the three other quadrants. The start of this new philanthropy strategy is already visible in that company C is trying to create awareness of its philanthropic activities among its employees. By organizing a special day in light of the charity supported employees are made aware of the philanthropic activities of the company. Currently this is only done one day a year but in the future company C wants to expand this further. 4.2 Related Philanthropy Strategy The related philanthropy strategy quadrant includes companies where the donations made are somehow related to the core business of the company. Consequently the company can support charities in the most efficient and effective way. Companies with a related philanthropy strategy have procedures in place to select and monitor its beneficiaries. However, the reason for companies in this quadrant to engage in philanthropic activities is to be social responsible, and no other more strategic goals are determined. Therefore, a related philanthropy strategy cannot be classified as strategic philanthropy since the donations only have an impact on the beneficiaries and not on the firm.

Companies B and E both qualify as a related philanthropy strategy. Both companies support beneficiaries which are related to the companys core business, and company E has next to cash donations also donations in products that the company manufactures. Both companies state that the reason for them to be engaged in philanthropic activities is to be social responsible. As a company you want to be social responsible, and to show good corporate citizenship. This is not possible via commercial activities only. (Stated by a company representative)

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

18

Companies B and E thought about how they should donate and what the effect will be, although both companies have no formal written-down strategy and mission. There is also no separate department on philanthropy and only 0,1 to 2 FTE is devoted to philanthropic activities. All these aspects show a highly informal strategy. However, both companies also have characteristics that give some evidence of a determined philanthropy strategy. First of all both companies have a pre-determined philanthropy budget that should be approved by the companys board. Also the selection of beneficiaries is done by a secure selection process. First there will be examined if the foundation has a clear link with the companys core business and next to that company B looks if donations do not get too fragmented and company E examines if there is another interest to donate, e.g. are there for example employees doing voluntary work for the specific charity. Both companies also create awareness among its employees via intranet and company B encourages its employees to recruit new talent and if one of the recruited persons becomes a new employee they can donate 500 euro to one of the projects company B supports. Company B also planned to measure the effectiveness of its donations by measuring the visibility of philanthropic activities among its employees and business relations. All these aspects show that the related strategy is more formal than the emergent strategy. Companies in this quadrant actually determined and implemented a philanthropy strategy. However, from the interviews appeared that both company B and E do not benefit from the donations made and therefore its philanthropy strategy cannot be classified as strategic philanthropy. 4.3 Adaptive Philanthropy Strategy The adaptive philanthropy strategy quadrant is the quadrant where companies have adapted the philanthropy strategy to the companys structure. A company in this quadrant does not want to be just social responsible but really wants to do something back for the specific community in which the company operates. However, there is no relation between the core business of the company and the charities supported. An adaptive philanthropy strategy can be classified as strategic philanthropy. Since a company with this type of strategy will generate benefits from its philanthropic activities. More positive visibility in the local community can for example result in more sales or less resistance from the local community.

Companies F and G both pursue an adaptive philanthropy strategy. Both companies state that it is important to do something back for the community in which the company operates. Company F is a manufacturing company and this harms the direct environment of the
Master Thesis Femke van den Heuvel 19

company, for that reason the company wants to compensate the direct community. Company G has a typical cooperative structure and for many years the company wants to give back some of the companys profit to the local community. Both companies state that the beneficiaries supported do not have to be related to the core business of the company. What is different from the companies discussed so far is that company F and G both have a formal written-down strategy and mission which is either publicly available or available on request. The philanthropy strategy is also formulated a few years ahead. Company Fs global strategy is formulated five years ahead and the local strategy one year ahead. For company G the philanthropy strategy is formulated three years ahead. Both companies also have a separate company foundation. For company G this foundation donates to national projects and the local banks are responsible for their own donations. The budget for philanthropic activities is determined upfront and should be approved by the board of the foundation. For the selection of beneficiaries both companies have a special process in place and beneficiaries are tested on several criteria. Both companies also have IT systems in use to select and monitor the philanthropic activities and company G uses IT systems to keep track of the financial information on different projects. Both companies also create awareness among its employees for the philanthropic activities supported. Company F encourages its employees to perform voluntary work by giving 250 euros to the foundation where an employee has helped 50hrs a year. What became clear during the interviews with both companies was that there is a very formal philanthropy strategy and that the strategy is of course in the first place to help beneficiaries but next to this the companies directly or indirectly benefit from the philanthropic activities. As one company representative stated:

If a local association or foundation requests a donation, the standard response of the big corporations is sorry, but you are too small for us. However, we are locally organised and therefore we obtain high benefits from investing in the local community in which we operate.

This is also what classifies this strategy as strategic philanthropy. Both, the recipient charity and the company, obtain benefits from the donations made.

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

20

4.4 Social Partnership Companies in the social partnership strategy quadrant donate to beneficiaries which are related to the companys core business. Furthermore, there is a win-win situation since the company itself also benefits from the donations made. The motivation for donating in this quadrant is in the first place to be social responsible but it is also in the interest of the company itself. Companies in this quadrant are thus performing strategic philanthropy since the donations made will next to benefit the general public also benefit the company. The term social partnership follows from America (1995) who determines a partnership as an active involvement of participants where resources are contributed and this should benefit all partners. Social implies that the activities involved are part of the social or public policy agenda (America, 1995, p.67). Since there are expected benefits for all participants a social partnership does not represent giving in its purest form (America, 1995). Therefore, the term social partnership is a convenient term for this quadrant.

Companies A and D qualify for this type of philanthropy strategy. Company A wants to support charities which cannot afford the services company A offers and next to this company A finds it important to make its own employees aware of the importance of philanthropy. The reason company D is engaged in philanthropic activities is to fight famine and poverty and to have employee engagement. Since, the company has been restructured and merged a few times philanthropic activities take care that its employees feel as a unity again. Next to this both companies only support charities if there is a relation with the core business. One company representative stated:

We donate in hours of expertise since we think you should always remain close to the companys core business; let the cobbler stick to its last

Both companies have a formal written-down philanthropy strategy and mission which is publicly available. The strategy of company A is formulated one year ahead and the strategy of company D is formulated every five years. Philanthropy has a separate department in company D where 10 persons devote 100% of their time on philanthropy matters, 9,5 FTE in total. Within company A philanthropy is part of the CSR department and 3 FTE is devoted on philanthropic matters. Both companies also measure the effectiveness of donations. Company

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

21

A measures the visibility of all CSR activities and company D measures the Return on Investment for the philanthropic partner and they measure how proud its employees are on the investments made. There is a predetermined philanthropy budget which has to be approved by the company board. This budget is than divided among several beneficiaries which meet the explicit requirements both companies have formulated for charities to qualify for a donation. As seen both companies have a highly formalized philanthropy strategy which is implemented throughout the whole company. And the philanthropy strategy of both companies benefits all participants, i.e. company and beneficiary. 4.5 Philanthropy Strategy Matrix The above description of the four different quadrants shows what type of philanthropy strategies exist. The interviews revealed the actual existence of these four different strategies and showed that it is also more common nowadays to be engaged in strategic philanthropy. Of course the main reason for companies to make donations is to help the general public, there is never a profit made out of philanthropic investments. However, it is more convenient for both the company and beneficiary if companies engage in strategic philanthropy. Since the company generates benefits from the donations made, the beneficiary could expect a more stable inward cash flow. The matrix shows that there are two types of strategies that classify as strategic philanthropy i.e. adaptive and social partnership philanthropy. The expectation for the future is that companies having an emergent philanthropy strategy will move to one of the other three strategies. Since donations can be made more efficiently and effectively if there is a clear philanthropy strategy in place. 5. Conclusion, limitations and further research This study examines if the philanthropy strategy matrix of Thijssens et al. (2009a) corresponds with corporate practice. Based on interviews with the most knowledgeable managers on philanthropy of seven different companies the existence of different philanthropy strategies was examined. The original philanthropy strategy matrix of Thijssens et al. was revised, since it appeared from the interviews that the number of non-profit partners was not a good measure to classify different philanthropy strategies. This resulted in a revised philanthropy strategy matrix, which is based on the existence of a relationship between the core business of the company and the social cause supported and the motivation to be engaged in philanthropic activities.

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

22

This research is one of the first case studies performed on philanthropy strategies. All four philanthropy strategies from the matrix were present in corporate practice and therefore this research confirms the existence of different philanthropy strategies. This also confirms that the two values on the axes of the matrix i.e. the relation between a companys core business and the social cause supported and the motivation for philanthropic activities are two relevant values for the classification of different philanthropy strategies. Furthermore, this research confirms the existence of strategic philanthropy in corporate practice. Since, there are companies engaged in philanthropic activities because this benefits both the recipient charity and the company itself.

The current study has main implications both for academics as practitioners. For academics, this research provides a useful tool for future research on philanthropy. For managers of companies and recipient charities, the implications are more practical. Companies having an emergent philanthropy strategy are provided an overview of different philanthropy strategies that they could pursue in the future. Also, companies establishing one of the proposed strategies will donate more effectively and efficiently and could even benefit from the donations made. In the end, when managers will notice the positive influences of their philanthropy strategy, this will increase their own satisfaction as well. Charities requesting donations have a better idea on which companies to focus and how a more long-term relationship with a company could be build. This helps them to ensure stable cash inflows.

This research has a number of limitations which should be considered when interpreting the results. First, the results of this research have limited generalizability. The sample size was very small and the fact that only one company representative was interviewed could have led to personal bias. Future research should therefore be more quantitative in nature. Furthermore, although the interviews were held with international operating companies only the philanthropic activities for the Netherlands were examined. Therefore, future research could study the existence of the philanthropy strategies on a global level. The interviews provide insights in the companies philanthropy strategy at one point in time; to study the characteristics of the philanthropy strategies on the long-term, future research should use a longitudinal research design. Finally, the interviews were based on the 7-S model which has a restricted number of variables. Therefore, other important variables could be left out.

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

23

References America, R.F., (1995). Philanthropy and economic development. Strategic philanthropy and partnerships for economic progress. In Philanthropy and economic development (pp. 65-84). Westport, United States of America: Greenwood Press.

Baumol, W.J., & Blinder, A.S. (2006). Microeconomics, principles and policy. (1st ed., pp 270 271). Mason, USA: Thomson.

Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1325-1343.

Campbell, D., & Slack, R. (2008). Corporate Philanthropy Strategy and Strategic Philanthropy Some insights from voluntary disclosures in annual reports. Business & Society, 47(2), 187-212.

Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4 (4), 497-505.

Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34 (4), 39-48.

Dobni, B. (2003). Creating a strategy implementation environment. Business Horizons, 46(2), 43-46.

Eisenhardt, K.M., (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532-550. Grant, R.M. (2005). Contemporary Strategy Analysis. (5th ed., pp - ). Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing.

Laarhoven, E. van,. (2008). Diversity in corporate giving: empirical evidence on the industry and nationality level. Master Thesis International Business. Maastricht University.

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

24

Lowell, S., Silverman, L., & Taliento, L. (2001). Not-for-profit management: The gift that keeps on giving. The McKinsy Quarterly , 1, 147-155.

McAlister, D.T., Ferrell, L. (2002). The role of strategic philanthropy in marketing strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 36 (5/6). 689-705.

Mintzberg, H. (1987). The strategy concept I: Five Ps for strategy. California Management Review, 30 (1), 11-24.

Pearce, & Robinson. (2005). Formulation, implementation, and control of competitive strategy. (9th ed., pp 321 - 352 ). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Porter, M.E., & Kramer, M.R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56-69.

Ricks, J.M., & Williams, J.A. (2005). Strategic corporate philanthropy: addressing frontline talent needs through an educational giving program. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 147-157.

Saiia, D.H., Carroll, A.B., & Buchholtz A.K. (2003) Philanthropy as Strategy: When Corporate Charity Begins at Home. Business and Society, 42(2), 169-201.

Simon, F.L. (1995). Global corporate philanthropy: a strategic framework. International Marketing Review, 12(4), 20-37.

Smith, C. (1994). The new corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 105116.

Thijssens, T., Heil, C., Bollen, L.H.H., & Hassink, H.F.D. (2009a) A taxonomy of philanthropy strategies. Working Paper Maastricht University.

Thijssens, T., Bollen, L.H.H., & Hassink, H.F.D. (2009b) Internal organisational fact driving CSR reporting: A typology of high-quality reporters. Working Paper Maastricht University.
Master Thesis Femke van den Heuvel 25

Waterman, Jr., R.H., Peters, T.J., & Philips, J.R. (1980). Stucture is not an organization. Business Horizons (June): 14-26.

Weinstock, D.S. (1982). Using the Herfindahl-index to measure concentration. Antitrust Bulletin, 27(2), 285-301.

Reference figure 1:

Figure 1. Philanthropy Strategy Matrix. From: A Taxonomy of Philanthropic Strategies (p. 6), by T. Thijssens, C. Heil, L. Bollen, H. Hassink, 2009, Maastricht: Working Paper Maastricht University.

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

26

Appendix 1: Questionnaire Throughout this questionnaire the following definition of philanthropy is used: the voluntary giving of money and/or other resources (e.g. time and talents) by corporations to non-profit beneficiaries. Interview questions for the research project Philanthropy Strategy Implementation

STRUCTURE Position within company 1. How is philanthropy represented within the company? As a separate department; As part of another department; As matrix/project structure; 2. Do affiliated employees devote 100% of time to Philanthropy matters? How many FTE in total? 3. What is the estimated annual budget for philanthropic activities? Concentration of authority 4. Is the policy on the support of philanthropic causes developed centralized or decentralized? 5. How many management layers are involved in decision making regarding philanthropy strategy? 6. Who is responsible for what? Who gives the final approval for philanthropic activities? 7. Who decides on the budget available to support philanthropic causes? STYLE OF MANAGEMENT Level of coordination 8. Who coordinates philanthropic activities? Means of communication 9. How does the communication within the philanthropy department take place (especially if matrix/project structure)? Top-down or Bottom-up; Via: e-mail, telephone, formal meetings, informal conversations; Are all philanthropy employees in the same building; 10. What is the frequency of meetings of the philanthropy officers?

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

27

STRATEGY Intended strategy vs. emergent strategy 11. Is there a formal philanthropy mission and strategy? Is it written-down in a formal document? 12. Has this document been published to the employees and public? 13. Who formulates the strategy? How many years ahead is it formulated? 14. Who are the target beneficiaries? Are they all equally important? 15. Does the current crisis have any effect on your philanthropy strategy? SYSTEMS Information systems 16. Do you have a system in place that helps in selecting and monitoring philanthropic activities? 17. Do you make use of other systems with regard to philanthropy? Effectiveness measurement 18. Do you measure the effectiveness of your donations? If yes: How do you measure this? SKILLS CORPORATE STRENGHTS Diversity of expertise 19. What is the professional background of the members of the philanthropy team? Are there any members with an NGO background? 20. What kinds of training opportunities exist for philanthropic officers? Past expertise 21. Which of your company skills would you call superior or most important with regard to philanthropic activities? STAFF Group composition 22. How many employees are currently working for the Philanthropy department/team? 23. What are the job description and responsibilities of each team member? In case of a matrix/project structure: which departments do members come from? 24. Are there any groupings within the team? On what are these sub-groups based? (e.g.: expertise, beneficiary groups)?

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

28

SUPER-ORDINATE GOALS Creation of awareness 25. How do you create awareness on philanthropy within your company? For example, how are philanthropic causes communicated to employees? 26. How do you encourage your employees to contribute to philanthropy? 27. Do you disclose information on philanthropic activities in your financial statement? Or do you make this information public in another way? Reason for having a philanthropy strategy 28. What is the most important reason for your company to engage in philanthropy? GENERAL QUESTIONS 29. In what way do you support philanthropic activities? With money or other resources (e.g. hours, products)? 30. How would you describe the core business of your company? 31. How do you select the philanthropic activities you support? 32. Do you see a relation between the core business of your company and the supported philanthropic activities? 33. How many philanthropic activities do you support? 34. If you focus on just one or a few philanthropic activities, what is the reason for this? And which philanthropic activity do you support? Appendix 2: Results interviews conducted See next pages

Master Thesis

Femke van den Heuvel

29

Company A Company B Company C Structure Position within company - Philanthropy representation Part of CSR department Part of department of sponsoring No separate department. and events Philanthropy is dispersed among communications, general affairs, and CSR departments Position within company - Time devotion 10 persons in total of which 1 No one devotes 100% of time to No one devotes 100% of time person devotes 100% of time to philanthropy matters. 2 FTE in to philanthropy matters. 0,5/1 philanthropy matters. 3 FTE in total FTE in total total Position within company - Budget 20000 hrs 500.000 EURO

Company D

Company E

Company F

Company G

Separate department on philanthropy

No separate department

Separate company foundation National: Separate company foundation Local: Every location different way of managing philanthropy

10 persons devote 100% of time No one devotes 100% of time to to philanthropy matters. 9,5 FTE philanthropy matters. 0,1 FTE in in total total. 10 persons in total

Within foundation 7 full time employees. Netherlands--> 3 employees no one devotes 100% of time 0,1 FTE total

National: Within foundation 4 employees for Netherlands 3 FTE in total all devote 100% of time to philanthropy. Local level is not traceable

Unknown

7.000.000 EURO

10.000 EURO Cash donations and 40.000 EURO Product donations

Netherlands: 60.000 EURO in Foundation Netherlands: 16,8 cash World wide:14,3 million million and 11.382 HRS Local: 20,4 million and 79.000 HRS

Concentration of authority - Centralization Structure centralized, execution Structure is centralized. Several (e.g. budgets projects) by country donations centralized. Netherlands has individual budget and activities but all are based on structure imposed by holding Concentration of authority - Management layers 1. Board 2. Two CR officers 1. Board officers 2. Director communication 3. Chief officer sponsoring and events

Everything is decentralized. USA and Netherlands own projects. Within Netherlands decentralization

All decisions are centralized

Decentralized

Centralized however execution National projects centralized via on local level foundation local projects decentralized

Significant donations: 1. Responsible manager 2. Director of either communications, general affairs, CSR. Smaller donations: 1. Responsible manager Responsible manager final approval

1. CEO 2.Corporate relations 3. 1. Board Director philanthropy department (practice direct to CEO)

1. Foundation 2. European Lead Team 3. Local contact person

1. Board of foundation 2. Director 3. Program manager (for significant amounts, otherwise just 2 layers)

Concentration of authority - Approval Board final approval Board final approval

CEO final approval

Board final approval

Foundation final approval

Depends on project, smaller projects program manager and director. Larger projects Company board Local: everything is autonomous National: Foundation is responsible for final approval two program manager who keep track of projects and they have one assistant who supports them and a controller who supplies information on budget.

Concentration of authority - Responsibilities CSR-officers are responsible for Chief officer sponsoring and philanthropy execution and events is responsible for coordination and report to board. philanthropy execution and Board gives final approval coordination. And reports to Director communication

Responsible managers are responsible for donations for significant amounts consultation with Director CSR,General Affairs, Communications

Board is responsible for strategy CEO and CFO are responsible formulation. Director for philanthropy execution and philanthropy department coordination coordinates

Foundation is responsible for final approval, Regional coordinator is responsible for overall strategy region, Local contact person is responsible for the making of "grantmaking" plan

Concentration of authority - Philanthropy budget 20.000hrs Board gives final 500.000 EURO Board gives final Budget unknown CSR Director 7.000.000 EURO CEO final approval budget approval budget gives approval of budget. approval of budget Nothing is recorded so information on donated amount is incomplete

50.000 EURO CFO gives final approval of budget

60.000 EURO Foundation and 20.000 EURO Diversified Netherlands First allocation by foundation to Europe than Europe lead team allocates to country (Worldwide budget 50,6 million)

Budget is percentage of group's profit local and national. Director foundation and board of foundation decide

Style Level of coordination CSR- officers coordinate, for Chief officer sponsoring and each project a separate events coordinates donations coordinator Means of communication - Communication Communication is bottom-up Formal face to face meetings feedback top-down only face to face communication Not all employees in same building Means of communication - Frequency of meetings 2 times a year csr officers are Weekly meetings with Chief present during board meeting officer Sponsoring and Events and Director Communications. However 2 times a month philanthropy is discussed 2 times a month csr officer has meeting with either chairman or HR responsible of board Weekly meetings with most knowledgeable employees on philanthropy Strategy Intended strategy vs. Emergent strategy - Existence of strategy Formal written-down strategy and No formal written-down strategy mission and mission

Director CSR and Director General Affairs

Director philanthropy department CEO and CFO coordinate responsible for coordination donations

Regional Lead team manager Program managers coordinate coordinates on national level

No formal meetings. Communication is informal since responsible persons are in same building and room

Formal communication all Informal communication bottom- Formal meetings informal employees in same building and up and top-down meetings, telephone room conversation. Responsible persons not in same building

Formal meetings and also informal communication.

Once every 5 years strategic No formal meetings review by board. Once every 3 years tactical review philanthropy department. Once a year operational review philanthropy department Once every 2 months meeting philanthropy department Regular meetings with project managers

2 times a year European Lead Team meeting end of 1st quarter planning end of 3rd quarter evaluation

6/7 times a year meeting with program manager and board of foundation and company. Weekly meetings with program managers and director.

Region coordinator weekly contact with local contact persons

No formal written-down strategy Formal written-down strategy and mission. Ad-hoc and mission development

No formal written-down strategy and mission

Formal written-down strategy and mission

Formal written-down strategy and mission

Intended strategy vs. Emergent strategy - Published Philanthropy strategy is publicly On website information about Nothing is published. On available which causes can file for website there is minor donations information Intended strategy vs. Emergent strategy - Formulated by / Time Horizon Philanthropy strategy formulated / / by CR-officer - 1 year ahead

Philanthropy strategy is publicly Nothing is published available

Philanthropy strategy is publicly available

Philanthropy strategy is available on request

Philanthropy strategy is formulated by philanthropy department and approved by board every five years Foundations that fight famine and poverty, where transportation and logistics can make a change

No philanthropy strategy formulation

Foundation formulates global Program manager and director strategy 5 years ahead. Local formulate strategy for upcoming strategy is formulated 1year three years ahead Local foundations which have Local foundations which a clear strategy for their operate in the working project environment of the company

Intended vs. Emergent strategy - Target beneficiaries Charities which do not have Foundations which are somehow At the moment there are no enough resources to pay for the related to the three pillars initiated typical targets. When an services company A offers. by the Holding employee has an idea money is given

Foundations which are committed to children

Intended vs. Emergent strategy - Crisis No reduction in hours donated No reduction in amount donated but better look at which projects (mostly long-term contracts) but to support, (i.e. only those that better look at which projects to have clear link with the core support (i.e. are new initiatives business) inline with chosen direction)

Reduction in amount donated and also more critical towards making donations to new causes

No influence of crisis (yet)

No influence of crisis

Because of foundation still donations however return on investment of foundation is lower therefore lower available budget, also there is a more critical look at which foundations to support

Since the budget is a percentage of the group's profit budget available is depending on profits.

Systems Information systems No IT systems for selecting No IT systems. Only excel-file beneficiaries, for monitoring donations there is a system used.

No IT systems

Monitoring: Purchase-order No IT-systems system, everything is cost-out. Selection: no real it-system, questionnaire with requirements for foundations ROI for philanthropic partner. Effectiveness is not measured How much money did we earn or what kind of savings did we make. No effectiveness measurement within TNT, only investigated that 66% of employees is proud because of the investments made

IT systems in use for selecting IT systems in use for financial and monitoring beneficiaries information on projects

Effectiveness measurement Effectiveness is measured 2 Effectiveness is not yet measured Effectiveness is not measured times a year by an external but will start second half of 2009 company; the visibility of CR beginning 2010. This will be done activities is measured. by an external company. They will Furthermore, regularly measure the visibility of discussions with directors, philanthropy activities among employees and clients on its employees and business philanthropy strategy. relations Skills Diversity of expertise - Professional background There is no requirement of any There is no requirement of any There is no requirement of any background in NGO's. background in NGO's background in NGO's Employees in CR all have management level Diversity of expertise - Training No specific philanthropy training opportunities

Effectiveness was measured a couple of years ago when there were larger budgets, reputation measurement in local community

Effectiveness of donations is measured in some cases this should be done more extensively. Effectiveness in terms of visibility for the company is not measured.

There is no requirement of any background in NGO's. All employees in department are from the "Business"

There is no requirement of any background in NGO's

No requirement of NGO background, but people working in philanthropy do have to have some kind of social responsibility

No requirement of NGO background, but marketing communication background is advisable

No specific philanthropy training opportunities

No specific philanthropy training opportunities

No specific philanthropy training No specific philanthropy training opportunities. Only standard opportunities competence trainings

Various training opportunities, No specific philanthropy e-learning, conference calls training opportunities however it is possible to improve skills and competences. Foundation communicates to the local companies on projects supported / /

Past expertise Coaching and Knowledge sharing Provide people with a secure Financial products financial future by giving good information about products and help them in making decisions. This is visible in the projects since the projects supported gives children the opportunity for a better future, also the various donations to Alzheimer and cancer foundations provide future population with a better future

Logistic expertise and network with other companies

Develop distribute and sell juvenile products

Staff Group composition - number of employees 10 3 Group composition - Job description Employees are all from either tax, Employees are full time assurance or advisory responsible for sponsoring and department events philanthropy is a part of this

Unknown

10

10

Netherlands 3 employees Foundation 7 employees

Foundation Netherlands: 4 employees local: unknown

No job description no one devotes 100% of time to philanthropy matters

Job description for all functions. No job description since no one Director, Finance director, devotes 100% of time to Project managers, location philanthropy matters manager, personal assistant. Employees are full time responsible for philanthropy matters. Other employees engaged in philanthropy matters vacancies via intranet

Job description available for 7 / employees of foundation no job description for 3 employees in Netherlands

Group composition - Groupings No sub-groups No sub-groups Super-ordinate goals Creation of awareness - Internal awareness There is information available on Information on philanthropy is the company's intranet. And there communicated to employees via are courses on CR where intranet philanthropy also plays a role

No sub-groups

No sub-groups

No sub-groups

No sub-groups

No sub-groups

Information on philanthropy is communicated to employees via intranet. In fall there is a special day in light of foundation supported plan is to have this 4 times a year with each time another foundation in the "spot-light"

Communication department is responsible for communicating everything on philanthropy via internet, leaflets, promotion videos

Information on philanthropy is communicated to employees via internal digital news paper, internet and the company's pinup board

Awareness is created in different ways, special month of service where employees who performed voluntary work are honoured and during month several projects are executed, presentation to location managers or team managers to create awareness, internet, intranet, leaflets

Awareness is created via the company's intranet. Furthermore if projects take place in a specific town the local company is contacted and informed.

Creation of awareness - Encouragement On the intranet there are When employees assist in No encouragement, based on Encouragement is done by vacancies for different projects. recruiting new talent and one of the information via intranet awareness creation There are always enough people the recruited persons becomes a employees come with initiatives willing to do this so no further new employee they can donate work performed 500 EURO to either an Alzheimer foundation or the partner foundation. Furthermore a footrace is organised to raise money for the partner foundation

Employees are encouraged to Employees are encouraged to perform voluntary work by come up with their own ideas actions mentioned above. on philanthropy. Furthermore if an employee performs 50hrs a year for a foundation he can earn 250 EURO for that foundation. If there is project with 10 persons 3000 EURO can be earned for the specific foundation No disclosure in company financial statements since foundation has own statements Disclosure in company's financial statements, separate social responsibility report.

Creation of awareness - disclosure Disclosure on philanthropy in No disclosure on philanthropy in financial statements financial statements

No disclosure on philanthropy in financial statements

Everything is disclosed in CSRreport

No disclosure on philanthropy in financial statements

Reason for philanthropy To make own employees aware of the importance of philanthropy and to support foundations which can not afford the services company A offers

Be social responsible and to show good corporate citizenship this can not be achieved by solely commercial activities

Company C is profit making Employee engagement and fight Be social responsible company and therefore they famine and poverty have resources available to help other organisations which do not have those resources available

Since Company F is a manufacturing company the company benefits but also harms the direct environment therefore the company does something back for the community

Company G is an organisation that has a structure of cooperation and for many years the company wants to give back some of the company's profit to the local community; support the community where you operate

General topics Means of support Hours (only a small amount of Money money) Core business Knowledge sharing in assurance, Life insurance, pensions and tax and consultancy investments Selection of beneficiaries Selection is based on the following points:

Money and hours

Money and Expertise

Money and Products

Money and hours

Money and hours

Financial products

Logistic knowledge

Development, distribution and sale of juvenile products

Aluminium producing and manufacturing company

Financial services provider

Selection is done by direction and they take care that the donations are not too fragmented and that there is some kind of relationship with the core business of the company

No selection procedure. A demand comes in with responsible manager ad-hoc decision if money is given

Which beneficiaries need the help and expertise of Company D

Selection is based on the following points:

When budget is allocated. Lead Team Manager meeting on what type of foundations the focus will be upcoming year. Than lead team manager goes to local contact persons to set up a "grant-making plan"

Projects supported by foundation should be nation wide, projects supported by local companies should operate in community where the organisation is active

1. How does this relate to the core competence of company A 2. Are there at least two departments involved. (e.g. tax and assurance) 3. Are there at least two employees involved 4. Does it fit between the minimum and maximum amount of hours 5. How much resources has the beneficiary. (e.g. larger foundations have to pay for the services offered) Relation to core business Only support if there is a relation There has to be an (indirect) with the core business relationship with the core business Number of beneficiaries My projects: 90 3 projects supported (=80%) Our projects: 3 Giving back: 20 Game guides: 80 Several smaller projects (=20%)

1. Is the foundation committed to children 2. Is there another interest to donate e.g. employee engagement, network connection

No relation to core business

Large projects supported have a There has to be a relationship link with the core business with the core business.

There is no direct relationship There is no direct relationship to core business to core business

1 project supported takes 2/3 of 2 large projects (7.000.000 1 project supported takes 1/3 of budget EURO) budget Several smaller projects 40 smaller projects (100-10.000 5 to 10 smaller projects

(2008) 2 projects several other national: 38 projects projects Local: 2660 projects

Reason for focus /

Otherwise the donations get too No specific reason happened fragmented and no impact can be ad-hoc made

Company D wanted to help an / organisation with their expertise. Search for foundation who needed this and ended in partnership