PAUL CAULFIELD

Love not Money Substitution and complementary effects in the dissemination of corporate community investment practices

LOVE NOT MONEY In  UK    from  2001  to  2011  •  Range  of  corporate  community  investments    

•  Rela:ve  level  of  CCI  allowing  for  “size”  

•  Resources  deployed  –  Human  resource  (Employee  volunteering)  

–  Financial  resource  (Corporate  Dona:ons)  

LOVE NOT MONEY •  How  are  decisions  made  about  corporate  community  investment?  

•  What  determines  choice  between  corporate  community  investments  of  different  types?  

•  How  do  philanthropic  prac:ces  disseminate?  

Where  are  decision  &  Who  sets  targets?  

How  ac:vely  to  communicate  &  

promote?  

How  much  to  invest/allow?  

What  type  of  rela:onship  &  who  with?    

Strategic decisions about CCI

From  interviews  and  focus  groups  (N=35)  

What  is  our  strategic  intent?    (opaque)  

Corporate    Responsibility  Principles  

(Mission  Statement)  

Resources  &  Investment  

Rela:onship  &  Ac:vi:es  

Organisa:on  &  Administra:on  

Communica:on  &  Promo:on  

Administrate  •   Department/staffing  •   Data  collec:on  •   Policies/prac:ces  

Resource/Invest  •   Manager  support    • Time-­‐off/  flexibility  •   Matched-­‐funding  /  Rewards  

Manage  rela7ons  &  ac7vity  •   VSO  causes  supported  •   Placement  arrangements  •   Ac:vity  team/individual  

Promote  (Internal/External)  • Recogni:on  •   Awareness/PR  •   Informa:on/Recruitment  

Administrate  •   Department/staffing  • Policies/prac:ces  

Resource/Invest  •   Manager  support  • Amount  donated  

Manage  rela7ons  &  ac7vity  •   VSO  causes  supported  •   Themes  supported  

Promote  (External)  • Awareness/PR  

Employee  Volunteering   Corporate  Dona7ons  

From  coding  of  FTSE  All  Share  Annual  Reports  2001-­‐2011  (N=333)  

Higher  complexity  

Corporate    Responsibility  Principles  

(Mission  Statement)  

Resources  &  Investment  

Rela:onship  &  Ac:vi:es  

Organisa:on  &  Administra:on  

Communica:on  &  Promo:on  

14  item  coding  instrument  with  four  independent  coders  

(V02)  The  company  shows  evidence  of  recording  data  on  volunteering  levels  through  targets  or  sta:s:cs  (McPhail&Bowles  2009)  

Employee  Volunteering   Corporate  Dona7ons  

Strategic  Management  

of  CCI  

Resource  Commitment    

to  CCI  

Two  factors  under  PCA  with  cronbach  alpha  >0.69  

“EMBEDDED”  High  strategic  management  High  resource  commitment  

“SUPERFICIAL”  High  strategic  management  Low  resource  commitment  (possibly  reputa:on  led)  

“REACTIVE”  Low  strategic  management  High  resource  commitment  (possibly  employee  led)  

“UNSUPPORTIVE”  Low  strategic  management  Low  resource  commitment  

Strategic  management  of  CCI  

Resource  com

mitm

ent  to  CC

I  How  are  decisions  made  about  

volunteering?  

Over  65%  of  firms    

Employee  led  Smaller    &  regional  firms  

(under  reported?)  

“2  days  a  year  to  volunteer”  Senior  management  backing  

Larger  firms  Extensive  communica:ons  

“Bob  ran  the  half-­‐marathon”  PR  styled  “nice”  news  

“Nice  to  our  neighbours”  Mission  statement  only  

How  are  decisions  made  about  corporate  community  investment?  

Money  is  easier!  Whilst  rela:onship  and  communica:ons  prac:ces  are  similar  across  both  volunteering  and  dona:ons…  …level  of  organisa:onal  commitment  and  resource  investment  are  dis:nct    

LOVE 0 MONEY 1

LOVE 0 MONEY 1 •  How  are  decisions  are  made  corporate  community  investment?  

•  What  determines  choice  between  corporate  community  investments  of  different  types?  

•  How  do  philanthropic  prac:ces  disseminate?  

-.50

.51

1.5

2C

ount

FT AllShare FTSE 250 FTSE 100

Volunteer Factor 1

-.50

.51

1.5

2C

ount

FT AllShare FTSE 250 FTSE 100

Volunteer Factor 2

Significant  differences  with  FTSE100  or  FTSE250  membership,  p=0.003)  

Resource  commitment  

For  Volunteering  –  “Size”  makers!  

Significant  differences  with  FTSE100  or  FTSE250  membership,  p=0.003)  

For  Dona:ons  –  History  makers!  •  Decisions  to  donate  a  highly  stable  over  :me  

•  Using  models  from  medicine  to  study  “Non-­‐donors”  suggests  pakern  is  zero  inflated  poisson  (e.g.  models  for  addicts)  

What  determines  choice  between  corporate  community  investments?  

Money  is  expected!  CCI  of  financial  resources  (dona:ons)  highly  ins:tu:onalised  …    …investment  choice  of  human  resources  (volunteering)  more  associated  with  internal  factors  (e.g  size,  industry,  peer  group)  

LOVE 0 MONEY 2

LOVE 0 MONEY 2 •  What  decisions  are  made  about  corporate  community  investment?  

•  What  determines  choice  between  corporate  community  investments  of  different  types?  

•  How  do  philanthropic  prac:ces  disseminate?  

Iden:fy  prac:ces  of  leading  firms  

BitC  award  winners:  Pla:num,  Gold,  Silver  e.g.    BHP  BILLITON  PLC  BRITISH  AMERICAN  TOBACCO  P.L.C.  BRITISH  SKY  BROADCASTING  GROUP  PLC  CENTRICA  PLC  IMPERIAL  TOBACCO  GROUP  PLC  MARKS  AND  SPENCER  GROUP  P.L.C.  NATIONAL  GRID  PLC  NORTHUMBRIAN  WATER  GROUP  PLC  PREMIER  FARNELL  PLC  SCOTTISH  AND  SOUTHERN  ENERGY  PLC  UNILEVER  PLC  …  

DON  Benchmark  Level  of  dona:on  per  head  

VOL  Benchmark    Level  of  policy  commitment  

0%#

10%#

20%#

30%#

40%#

50%#

60%#

70%#

80%#

90%#

100%#

0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%# 90%# 100%#

%"who

"have"do

pted

"fina

ncial"don

a1on

"ben

chmark"in"field"

%"who"have"dopted"employee"volunteering"benchmark"in"field"

Extrac3ve_2001#

Extrac3ve_2005#

Extrac3ve_2009#

Finance_2001#

Finance_2005#

Finance_2009#

Manufacture_2001#

Manufacture_2005#

Manufacture_2009#

Retail_2001#

Retail_2005#

Retail_2009#

Service_2001#

Service_2005#

Service_2009#

Wholesale_2001#

Wholesale_2005#

Wholesale_2009#

FINANCE***  Complementary  Early  adopters  

WHOLESALE  &  RETAIL  Subs:tu:onal  Late  adopters  

EXTRACTIVE  ??  

SERVICE  &  MANUFACTURE  Complementary  Lower  adop:on  

Level  of  adop7on  volunteering  prac7ces  -­‐>  

Level  of  a

dop7

on  don

a7on

 prac7ces-­‐>  

Dissemina:on  of  prac:ces  

DON  2009  

DON  2005  

DON  2001  

VOL  2009  

VOL  2005  

VOL  2001  

Star:ng  condi:ons  

2001    FACTORS  

2005  FACTORS  

2009    FACTORS  

Organisa:onal  (and  Internal)  

Ins:tu:onal  (and  External)  

Dissemina:on  of  prac:ces  

DON  2009  

DON  2005  

DON  2001  

VOL  2009  

VOL  2005  

VOL  2001  

Standardised  coeffs,  only  significant  paths  p<0.20  shown  

+IVE***  +IVE***  

CCI  BALANCED  BIN  RUN  6.0.0  Chi  0.678*,  df=3,  p=.8783  

RMSEA=0.000                      CI  90%    0.000    0.0550  

                 Prob.  RMSEA  <=  .05      0.941  CFI    1.000  

Dona:ons  prac:ces  

Volunteering  prac:ces  

+IVE***  +IVE***  

+IVE**  NS  

NS  

Autoregressive  

Conclusions  •  Dona:ons  highly  dependent  on  past  (R2  =0.73)  •  Volunteering  less  so  (R2=0.39)  •  Dona:ons  ini:ally  lead  volunteering  prac:ces  •  Once  volunteering  established  its  evolu:on  is  somewhat  independent  with  only  weak  

correla:on  between  ac:vi:es  •  Volunteering  does  not  influence  on  dona:ons  

2001  FACTORS  

2005  FACTORS  

2009  FACTORS  

Finance  sector  leads  prac:ces  

DON  2009  

DON  2005  

DON  2001  

VOL  2009  

VOL  2005  

VOL  2001  

Standardised  coeffs,  only  significant  paths  p<0.20  shown  

FINANCE  

LONDON  HQ  

+IVE*  

Organisa:onal  Constants    

WHOLESALE  

SERVICE  

+IVE  #  

+IVE***  

-­‐-­‐IVE  (NS)  

+IVE  (NS)  

Financial  sector  leads  CCI  strategies  in  UK  Other  star:ng  condi:ons  age,  ownership,  exposure  to  

overseas  markets  fail  to  be  significant  <0.20.  Other  industries  fail  to  be  significant  as  star:ng  condi:on.  

Employee  limited  influence  on  dona:ons  

DON  2009  

DON  2005  

DON  2001  

VOL  2009  

VOL  2005  

VOL  2001  

EMPLOYEES’01  EMPLOYEES’05  EMPLOYEES’09  

-­‐IVE  #  

Note)  Employees  correlated  with  Coercive  Visibility  ***  

Organisa:onal  Variables  

-­‐IVE  #  

Dona:ons  per  head    ini:ally  grows  then  appears  capped  with  size  

Profit  early  influence  on  dona:ons  

DON  2009  

DON  2005  

DON  2001  

VOL  2009  

VOL  2005  

VOL  2001  

+IVE***  PROFIT  ‘01  PROFIT  ‘05  PROFIT  ‘09  

+IVE*  

Note)  Employees  correlated  with  Coercive  Visibility  ***  

Organisa:onal  Variables  

Profit  is  ini:ally  important  for  dona:ons  but  reduces  in  significance  

Media  visibility  early  influence  on  dona:ons  

DON  2009  

DON  2005  

DON  2001  

VOL  2009  

VOL  2005  

VOL  2001  

VISIBILITY’01  VISIBILITY’05  VISIBILITY’09  

+IVE*  

Note)  Employees  correlated  with  Coercive  Visibility  ***  

Coercive  factors  appear  to  have  an  ini:al  effect  in  2001  on  dona:ons,  but  have  not  been  seen  to  influence  adop:on  standards  since  then.  Volunteering  appears  to  be  ‘immune’  to  coercive  influence  

Coercive  Variables  

   

+IVE  (NS)  

Media  visibility  has  been  significant  influence  on  dona:ons  but  has  no  influence  on  volunteering  

Membership  of  BitC  is  catalyst  

DON  2009  

DON  2005  

DON  2001  

VOL  2009  

VOL  2005  

VOL  2001  

BITC  ’01  BITC’05  BITC’09  

+0.246**  

Note)  BITC  membership  in  2001  is  posi:vely  correlated  with  both  Employees    &  Coercive  Visibility  ***  

Norma:ve  effects  appear  to  have  only  weak  effects  and  affect  volunteering  to  a  limited  to  early  development  of  the  field.  

Norma:ve  Variables  

+0.263**  

How  do  philanthropic  prac:ces  disseminate?  

Money  spent  first!  Previous  dona:on  strongest  predictor  of  all  future  prac:ces    Finance  sector  as  role  model    BitC  as  influencer    

LOVE 0 MONEY 3

LOVE 0 MONEY 3 THANK  YOU