 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
 |
|
|
|
SRI & The Market
|
Library |  Printer-friendly version |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| > Back to Library |
The Contours Of Corporate Community Involvement In Australia's Top Companies Journal of Corporate Citizenship December 2003 This paper presents the results of a survey on the extent and nature of corporate community involvement (CCI) activities among Australia's top companies, and suggests that CCI has come of age. The survey finds that, while traditional aspects of CCI are strong, such as the universal financial support given to non-profit organisations, newer practices are also emerging. Across all sectors, companies in Australia are developing new methods of CCI that break away from philanthropic and sponsorship traditions in Favour of partnerships with non-profits. The findings also show, however, that there is still Far to go before these partnerships and practices become truly strategic and innovative, particularly in the area of employee involvement. CEO: 'Let's not be too altruistic about making this decision.' CEO: 'No, we have a duty to the shareholders to wipe the floor with our competitors ... They are our people, they are our society. The public can take care of themselves.' This last statement captures the dichotomy that many companies have had to grapple with over the last decade in terms of their social impact. Do companies have obligations that extend beyond their shareholders? Should they also be responsible and accountable to other 'stakeholders' in society such as their local communities, their employees or non-profit organisations? The term corporate social responsibility (CSR) is generally used to express the idea that companies have obligations that extend beyond shareholders. An important component of CSR in Australia is corporate community involvement (CCI). CCI focuses on a company's social impact and is of particular importance to non-profit organisations in community services. In brief, understanding CCI means examining the structures and strategies companies have in place to provide financial and in-kind assistance (e.g. corporate philanthropy) as well as contributions of time and expertise (e.g. employee volunteer programmes) to the wider community. Several factors are behind the recent increased interest in CSR and CCI. First, companies have faced external pressures from non-government organisations to provide greater transparency and accountability, especially in the areas of environmental impact and human fights (Andriof and Marsden 1998). Second, consumers have become more sophisticated in their purchasing and investment decisions, demanding greater accountability and transparency about company activities (Logan 1997). Third, employees have begun to demand that their workplaces have sound ethical values and positive community interactions. Fourth, governments' approach to social policy and the provision of social services has placed an increasing emphasis on collaboration with the corporate sector through alliances and partnerships (McClure 2000). Over the last decade it appears that many Australian companies have responded to these pressures. In an address on corporate public affairs, BHP's John Prescott (1995) argued that 'as well as pay-offs in terms of reputation and credibility, being a good corporate citizen is a matter of enlightened self interest'. He spoke of reaching for greater community 'engagement' to foster a climate of better business--society relations. He concluded that there is 'no conflict between pursuing a stronger business--community partnership and maximising profits'. Prescott echoed the Australian approach to CCI in the 1990s, seeing it as an essential,strategic issue that does not need to conflict with profit-driven motives. This view was confirmed by a recent report that found that long-term viability, rather than immediate profit, motivates many Australian companies to undertake CCI activities. While a minority of companies remain interested in altruistic efforts, the majority saw CCI 'as a way to maintain trust, support and legitimacy with the community, governments and employees' (CCPA 2000: 11). While interest in CSR and CCI continues to grow, there have been few extensive empirical studies conducted in Australia (for exceptions, see CCPA 2000 Birch and Batten 2001). This paper presents the results of a survey on the extent and nature of CCI activities among Australia's top companies. The next section briefly reviews the literature of CCI, followed by a presentation of the key findings and their implications for the development of CCI in Australia. Corporate community involvement: a brief review Strategic vision and approach Being strategic in relation to CCI refers to whether companies implement their CCI activities through a clear set of policies supported by relevant plans, objectives, targets and procedures. Indicators of this include whether companies have publicly available statements on CCI policies and practices, their rationale for implementing CCI, whether they formally measure and evaluate their CCI activities, and the degree to which they communicate and consult with their stakeholders. Australian companies are often viewed as using CSR and CCI activities in a short-term and charitable manner that remains disconnected from their overall business strategy and goals (Peters 2001 Birch and Batten 2001). Increasingly, however, Australian companies are moving towards more stakeholder-focused models of collaboration with the non-profit sector (Lyons 2001). It has also been argued that, as companies see the benefits that CCI can bring across all aspects of business operations, more Australian companies will seek to take a strategic and integrated approach to CCI (CCPA 2000). Previous Australian research has suggested that Australian companies vary with respect to the extent and nature of CCI vision and mission statements. One survey found that half of the respondents had a vision statement or management policy for their CCI (CCPA 2000). Another study of Australia's top 500 companies suggested that only 7% displayed corporate citizenship as 'central to the strategic direction of their business' in their public documents including annual reports, vision statements and business objectives (Glazebrook 2000). Furthermore, while many companies have integrated statements that explain financial, environmental and social policies, programmes and priorities, others choose discreet policy statements addressing particular areas (BCA 2001). Such statements are an initial but fundamental step towards having an effective CCI policy. Australian companies are not alone in this transformation. The evidence from international studies suggests that companies are beginning to integrate their CCI policy with the overall business strategy rather than see it as an ad hoc diversion (Weiser and Zadek 2000 Peters 2001 Margolis and Walsh 2001). Integrating CCI into the overall corporate goals may allow companies to see the benefits of CCI across all performance measures (Weiser and Zadek 2000). While some companies undertake CCI activities with the view to an immediate financial return, others focus on longer-term and more holistic benefits (CCPA 2000). Formulating a CCI policy that aligns with other corporate goals allows CCI to be seen as a vital integral part of a company's overall operations across functions such as human resources, sales, operations and management strategy. Recent studies, however, have suggested that Australian companies are lagging behind best practice in terms of integrating CCI with their corporate business plan (CCPA 2000 Birch and Batten 2001). When companies do undertake CCI activities, it is for a variety of reasons that include altruistic, economic and public image considerations. Most companies also recognise the longer-term benefits that actively engaging the community in their operations can bring (CCPA 2000). Factors that have been found to influence companies' decisions on corporate citizenship issues in Australia include: * Community expectations, changing social values and building good community/ stakeholder relations A more recent trend has been for companies that have been the subject of public scrutiny and criticism concerning their potential adverse impact on the community to make stronger efforts in developing and communicating their CCI policies. For instance, the poor image of the mining industry led many Australian mining companies to adopt more socially responsible and accountable practices in the 1990s, leading one commentator to argue that mining companies 'no longer attract the same condemnation as prime examples of corporate callousness and greed' (Hewett 2001: 45). Instead, the banking industry has in recent years suffered similar community criticism and outrage. Now, 'banks are Exhibit A in the community's case of backlash against everything from the decline of rural towns to the effects of globalisation' (Hewett 2001: 45). One prominent bank (Westpac), for example, has now formed a new board committee on social responsibility that includes the chair of the board and CEO. The CEO has stated that, although adopting new practices may 'add to costs in the short term ... in the long run the benefits will far outweigh them' (Morgan, cited in Hewett 2001: 49 Bell 2001). In addition to formulating and articulating policies, companies' measurement of the effectiveness of their CCI is another indicator that they see such activity as a key part of their overall business. It also allows companies to assess the costs and benefits of any CCI activity, which may lead to an expansion or modification of existing COl practices. A wide variety of approaches to measuring CCI, including benchmarking, social auditing and self-reporting, are available to companies. The complexity of measurement, however, often prevents many companies from participating in CCI activities, since they are not sure how they can evaluate their impact (CCPA 2000 Peters 2001). Nevertheless, an earlier survey showed that half of the companies in the sample reported that they formally evaluated their CCI programmes (Birch and Batten 2001). As part of evaluating CCI activities, companies may also seek to measure the effectiveness of COl for particular stakeholder groups. A company's approach to the local community and the environment, for instance, can be a powerful mechanism to engage internal and external stakeholders such as employees and customers (BCA 2001 Fox 2001). Companies may therefore wish to monitor whether particular CCI activities have led to changes in consumer or employee attitudes and behaviour. Another important aspect of having a strategic approach to CCI is whether companies communicate their CCI activities to their stakeholders. This communication allows a company to gain additional benefits from their investment including improving their image, increasing employee morale and support from the community. One Australian study found that over half (54%) of the companies surveyed publicised their CCI activities (Birch and Batten 2001). Perhaps more important than communicating with the public is whether companies consult with various stakeholders when they formulate their CCI policies. Consultation is one way in which companies can increase stakeholder acceptance and receptiveness to their CCI practices and help to facilitate their success. Previous Australian research suggests that companies view (in order of importance) their local community, employees, customers and government as key stakeholders to consult concerning CCI (CCPA 2000). Staff and employee involvement Employee volunteer programmes (EVPs) are an aspect of CCI that is of growing importance for companies and the community sector (CCPA 2000 Zappala 2001). While some companies develop and manage internal volunteer programmes, others work with volunteer centres to co-ordinate their employees' volunteer efforts (Wilcox 2000). Many EVPs are limited to supplying information about volunteer opportunities and resources, others provide training, placement and 'dollars for doers' funds that give additional financial support to the non-profit organisation where the employee volunteers (Points of Light Foundation 2000). Employees are often motivated to participate in EVPs for reasons associated with personal satisfaction and increasing their community interaction and awareness (Lee 2001). Whatever the nature of EVPs, they are increasingly being developed, especially in the United States, to assist companies in the recruitment, retention and development of employees as well as for marketing, communications and public relations purposes often in alignment with corporate giving programmes. One study of EVPs in the US found that 81% of companies supported employee volunteering as a core business function (Points of Light Foundation 2000). In contrast, an Australian study found that only one-third of companies provided resources and support for employee volunteering (Birch and Batten 2001). A more recent survey found that three-quarters of companies were slightly or very active in employee involvement and volunteering (State Chamber of Commerce 2001). A final way in which companies can involve and support their employees in community programmes is through establishing internal donation programmes. In some instances, companies have a list of causes or charities they donate to based on employee preferences, and they then match any gifts made by employees as well as facilitate payment through automatic payroll deduction schemes (Peters 2001). Corporate financial support: traditional and new forms The financial dimension of CCI involves examining how companies invest in the community through partnerships with, and financial and in-kind support of, non-profit organisations. While company support for non-profit organisations is increasingly valuable in Australia, it is still considerably smaller than the grants such organisations receive from individuals or government (Lyons 1999). Financial investment, previously termed 'corporate philanthropy', is one of the most traditional and widespread aspects of CSR and CCI (Andriof and Marsden 1998). Companies give to a wide range of organisations and causes. Companies may often align the area to which they offer financial support with their core business (e.g. an insurance company supporting health or safety promotions, or a publisher promoting literacy). Setting priority areas for providing financial support was practised in up to 60% of companies in a survey of companies in Australia (Birch and Batten 2001). In the same survey, 44% of companies supported the arts, 60% gave to charities and 49% supported education. Another study found that one-third of corporate funding went towards sponsorships of cultural and sporting events, with areas such as 'community participation, philanthropic donations and community business partnerships' receiving a relatively smaller share (CCPA 2000). Education, cultural activities and the environment were also identified as priority areas among the companies surveyed (CCPA 2000). A less traditional form of corporate financial support is the creation of longer-term sustainable partnerships between companies and non-profit organisations. Governments in particular are increasingly active in promoting partnerships between the voluntary and business sector as part of their approach to social policy (Encel and Studenski 2000). Such partnerships may combine several CCI practices such as financial investment, girls-in-kind, EVPs and cause-related marketing. While partnerships can increase the impact and return on philanthropic activity, they require a more intensive commitment of planning and resources from both parties (CCPA 2000). This area of CCI is still relatively new and untried territory for companies and nonprofits in Australia and a great deal of mutual suspicion and misunderstanding exists. One consultant recently told an Australian business audience that they should take a proactive approach and partner with non-government organisations and that business should see NGOs as consultants rather than critics (Edelman in Fox 2001). One Australian company has developed a list of nine key partnership principles that include: recognition, respect, review, resilience, responsibility, reward, resolve and relevance (BCA 2001). The Australian evidence on partnerships is mixed. Some studies have found that companies are more willing to fund short-term charitable projects rather than longer-term integrated partnerships (Birch and Batten 2001). Others have noted a strategic shift towards developing less short-term and more extensive partnerships one survey reported that two-thirds of companies had some form of community partnership (State Chamber of Commerce 2001). (1) Background to the survey Data for the study came from a survey of the top 100 companies in Australia by revenue as ranked by the Business Review Weekly (2000) conducted in June 2001. The survey sought to measure the current CCI policies and practices in Australia's top companies, and asked questions on the key dimensions of CCI discussed above. A response rate of 59% was achieved. There was no evidence that respondents and non-respondents differed significantly in terms of key background characteristics (see Cronin and Zappala 2002 and Cronin et al. 2001 for further details on the survey and respondent characteristics). In brief, the majority of companies were classified as small (less than 5,000 employees) or medium (5,000-10,000 employees) one-quarter had more than 10,000 employees. Two-fifths of companies were from the manufacturing industry, with almost one-fifth from the finance industry. Just over one-fifth comprised companies from the mining, communication services and retail trade industries. The majority of companies in the sample were multinational (83%) and Australian-owned (81%). Over two-thirds of respondent companies were also publicly listed in Australia. Key findings Strategic vision and approach Almost three-quarters of companies (71%) that responded to our survey had written statements on their CCI policies. Analysis of these statements suggested that the majority were in the form of brief internal memos outlining the eligibility criteria for receiving sponsorship or overviews of community involvement from annum reports or websites. The larger multinational firms tended to have extensive external publications detailing specific policies, programmes and procedures they employ in their approach to CCI and CSR (e.g. annual community and environmental reports). In most cases, these documents are available on company websites. The existence of a written statement on companies' CCI policies was positively related to company size in terms of the number of employees, revenue and whether the company ran international operations. Industry also seemed to have an influence 90% of companies in the financial services industry (n = 10) had a written policy compared with 70% of companies in manufacturing (n = 23). There was no relationship between public or private ownership and the presence of a written CCI policy. In contrast to the widespread presence of written statements on CCI, only 39% of companies mentioned their CCI policy in their vision or mission statements. The large difference between having a written statement and also incorporating CCI into vision and mission statements suggests that CCI policies still tend to be internally focused rather than aimed at the wider public. It may also suggest that the CCI policies of many companies are still not considered part of the core business strategy mission statements are less likely to make reference to community in the same way that they currently mention valuing product, people and profit. While relatively few companies mentioned CCI in their vision and mission statements, the majority of respondents (81%) stated that their CCI objectives were integrated into their overall corporate business plan. In terms of the motivations to engage in CCI, Table 1 suggests that companies engaged in CCI primarily to: These responses suggest that companies' motivations for engaging in CCI lean towards the more traditional reasons associated with corporate social responsibility such as creating a good environment for their local communities (Troy 1985 Logsdon et al. 1990 Logan 1997 Marx 1999). Nevertheless, they also suggest that almost half of the companies were engaging in CCI as a way of improving their image, perhaps as a response to external pressure from the community. This was particularly the case for companies in the financial services sector, with 80% strongly agreeing with the statement that they undertook CCI to improve their image. Overall, companies were less likely to undertake CCI for reasons that went beyond ethical or altruistic motives, such as seeing CCI activities as a way to implement their corporate business goals or improving the company's financial performance. This is in spite of international evidence that suggests that there is a positive relationship between forms of CSR and financial outcomes (Weiser and Zadek 2000 Margolis and Walsh 2001). Nevertheless, they suggest that at least some companies in Australia are beginning to follow international trends by seeing CCI as part of the overall business strategy as well as a form of altruism. Our survey found that 61% of respondent companies (n = 36) reported that they had a policy of formally measuring the effectiveness of their CCI activities. Table 2 shows that, of those companies that measure their CCI activities, they are most likely to do so for their employees. This may be because the impact of CCI is more easily monitored for internal stakeholders or the linking of CCI to employee motivation objectives. The lower rankings for external stakeholders suggest that companies are not taking advantage of the potential feedback that groups such as customers may be able to provide on their CCI activities. Table 2 also shows that, while all the companies consulted with at least one stakeholder when formulating their CCI policies, they place greater importance on some stakeholders (e.g. employees and the local community) than others (e.g. shareholders). Similar to the findings on the evaluation of CCI activities, companies are most likely to consult with their own employees when formulating their CCI policy. These findings suggest that employees are seen as a key internal stakeholder with respect to CCI. These findings are somewhat inconsistent, however, with the relatively low emphasis the companies placed on employees as a reason for undertaking CCI. This inconsistency is compounded when other findings on how companies engage their employees directly in their CCI practices are discussed below. It may be that companies consult with their employees because it is easier and less expensive compared with consulting with their customers. The local community was the next most likely stakeholder to be consulted, often through forums. In contrast, shareholders and the general public were the least-consulted stakeholders. This may be due to the perception that shareholders are often concerned about companies undertaking CCI activity at the expense of other 'core' activities (Henderson 2001). Companies may find that it becomes more important to consult shareholders in the future, however, as a result of the growing interest and influence of ethical investment products and processes (O'Halloran 2001). Furthermore, while shareholders may not be widely consulted in matters relating to CCI, they would receive information about companies' CCI activities through annual reports, which were the most frequently used mode to communicate CCI policies. These findings therefore suggest a dissonance between stakeholder communication and consultation regarding CCI policies, which requires further examination. It was noted previously that companies have high rates of employee consultation for their CCI policy formulation and evaluation (Table 2). Similarly, 85% of companies reported that their staff and employees are encouraged to participate in their CCI activities. When we examine actual employee involvement practices, however, companies did not perform as well. We found a relatively high degree of support for employee volunteering 61% of companies stated that they had policies that support employee volunteer activity. The promotion and development of employee volunteering was often linked to the UN International Year of Volunteers and the Sydney Olympics in 2000. Table 3 suggests that most employee volunteer activity is still of a relatively informal nature, with companies providing either paid or unpaid release time. Almost all the companies that supported some type of employee volunteer activity also offered rewards for employee participation in these voluntary activities. This was primarily in the form of promoting such participation through employee newsletters and the giving of awards and certificates (Table 4). Very few companies (12%), however, rewarded the executive team for voluntary service on community or non-profit boards. In contrast, a us study found that three-quarters of companies reward employee participation on non-profit boards (Points of Light Foundation 2000). This type of volunteer activity, which is important to many non-profit and community organisations, may also require greater recognition by companies in Australia (Lyons 2001). Similar to a previous Australian study (Birch and Batten 2001), just over one-third of the companies had a programme for matching employees' charitable donations. Of these, 36% had a specific list of non-profit organisations for which they matched gifts. Just over half of the companies also provided a payroll deduction facility for employee charitable donations. Of the companies without this facility (27), only one-fifth intended to implement this feature in the next year. Payroll deductions have not been as popular in Australia as they are in countries such as the United States. This may change, however, as more companies use intermediary organisations (e.g. the Charities Aid Foundation) to manage their employee deduction programmes as a way to reduce administrative effort and facilitate effective investment in the community (CCPA 2000). (2) While our findings suggest that companies have room to improve the extent to which they involve their employees in CCI practices, almost all companies (97%) stated that they communicated their CCI policies and activities to their employees. Table 5 suggests that the mechanisms through which companies communicate their CCI activities to their employees are the traditional employee newsletters and e-mails. A small number of companies are beginning to make use of less traditional mechanisms such as recruitment material and employment contracts. Corporate financial support and partnerships Every company that responded to our survey had provided financial support (excluding employee donations) to non-profit organisations. A very high proportion of companies (86%) also made in-kind or service contributions to non-profit organisations. These included genetic gifts and services such as office space, supplies and phone support, as well as more specific gifts such as building materials, beverages, clothing and insurance for non-profit organisations. Half of the companies stated that the total value of financial support and in-kind contributions they had given to non-profit organisations in the financial year ending 2001 was over half a million dollars. The value of contributions varied by a range of company characteristics, with larger companies providing greater amounts of financial support. Foreign-owned companies were also more likely to donate more than Australian companies. In contrast, multinational status had little effect on the value of financial support. Companies in the financial services industry were more likely to be bigger supporters compared with companies in manufacturing. Similarly, four of the five mining companies provided more than a half million dollars to non-profit organisations in the last year. How companies determine the value of financial support to non-profit organisations varies. Previous surveys of companies in Australia have suggested that companies calculate financial support as a certain percentage of their pre-tax profits, set aside specific budgets at global or business unit level or have particular marketing accounts used for donations (Birch and Batten 2001). Table 7 suggests that most companies in our survey determine the amount of support given to non-profit organisations as part of a particular functional area's budget (e.g. the marketing or public affairs budget). There is also a high degree of flexibility in this process: two-fifths of companies stated that amounts to be provided are determined as a variable dollar amount The variation may be due to changes in profitability or the exigencies of non-profits in particular years. Companies are less likely to use approaches that link amounts provided to particular indicators such as profits or revenue. The most popular areas for corporate financial support were children and youth, community services, culture and the arts, the environment and medical research. While the survey did not ask what proportion of companies' financial support was given to each area, it is likely that these areas also received the largest proportion of corporate funding. Supporting documentation provided by the companies also suggested that many companies operating in remote areas had supported specific local community programmes such as schools, community centres or emergency services such as the fire brigade. Of particular interest, partnerships are a key feature of the top companies in Australia, with almost all respondents (90%) stating that they had partnerships with one or more non-profit organisations. These partnerships ranged in length from 1 year to 20 or 30 years. Table 8 shows the key elements of those partnerships that companies considered the most significant. Interestingly, the data suggests that, while partnerships may be widespread, they primarily consist of traditional CCI dimensions such as financial and in-kind donations. Further research in this area is required to examine whether and how partnerships are moving companies and non-profits away from 'armchair philanthropy'. Discussion Our survey examined three key areas of corporate community involvement. The first area, strategic vision, explored how companies implement their CCI strategy through a clear set of policies supported by plans, objectives and procedures. We found that, while most companies had written statements, these were internally focused and not always integrated into their mission and vision statements. Companies were less likely to acknowledge their economic motivation for CCI activities or undertake extensive measurement to gauge the impact of these efforts. While companies will still undertake CCI for traditional 'altruistic' reasons, increasingly companies will also do so for internal benefits such as improved public image and reputation, increased employee satisfaction and financial performance. These need to be acknowledged as legitimate reasons for undertaking community involvement. As the survey findings demonstrated, companies facing greater public scrutiny are more likely to invest in CCI in order to improve their image. In particular, companies from the financial services sector have perhaps invested more time and resources into CCI as one way of countering the negative media and public reaction to some of their activities in recent years. Mining and resource companies that were the target of similar public scrutiny in past years now seem to have more sophisticated and extensive CCI and CSR programmes. These findings concurred with previous Australian studies that suggest that CCI is often seen as separate from the overall business strategy. Both the literature and our survey findings suggest that companies need to incorporate their approach to CCI with their overall business strategy. The second area of enquiry asked how companies use their CCI policies and activities as a tool to manage, develop and motivate their employees through employee volunteer programmes, communication of company CCI activities to employees, matching employee charitable contributions, and providing a payroll deduction facility for employee charitable donations. While companies reported high levels of communication, consultation and measuring the effectiveness of CCI with employees, there was a discernible lack of investment with actual employee participation programmes. These programmes, including matching gifts, payroll deduction and employee volunteering, still need further development of time, personnel and resources. Elsewhere, we have argued that a possible reason for the relative under-development of the employee dimension of CCI is the dominance of the corporate and public affairs function with respect to CCI decision-making and implementation (Zappala and Cronin 2002). Given the lack of employee involvement programmes, however, there may be a case for greater involvement of the human resources function in the development and implementation of CCI in the future. Finally, the survey examined how companies invest in the community through partnerships with, and financial and in-kind support of, non-profit organisations. Australian companies and non-profit agencies were forced to examine their relationship in recent years as government funding of non-profits was decreased and corporate partnerships were promoted, recognised and awarded by the government (Cronin 2001). The literature suggests that these partnerships were not as long term, co-operative or holistic as they could be. Our survey suggests that partnerships between sectors have begun to receive more attention, support and assistance in addition to financial contributions. There is still a long way to go, however, before these partnerships can be considered truly strategic and innovative. While evidence of partnerships was widespread, the most predominant aspect of partnerships was still cash donations. So, although some companies speak of a new style of CCI, practice still needs to evolve. Non-profits may need to take a stronger leadership role in directing the sector's movement into new types of partnerships with companies, creating opportunities (e.g. in terms of EVPs) for these new styles of alliance to emerge while recognising both the opportunities and limitations of CCI (Zappala 2001 Lyons 2001). Conclusion While some commentators continue to be sceptical and critical of corporate social responsibility and corporate community involvement (Henderson 2001), unlike many other management fads, it is unlikely to disappear. This paper presented the findings on the extent and trends in CCI from some of Australia's largest companies. Overall, they demonstrate that CCI has come of age. A limitation of our study is that it only allowed the identification of particular CCI practices among a select group of companies in Australia. Further in-depth research on how CCI practices translate into effective community programmes as well as the nature of corporate--community partnerships remains to be undertaken. This will also require a greater understanding of how the non-profit sector is responding to some of the challenges and possibilities that a more 'community-minded' corporate sector allows. This is especially crucial as the Australian non-profit sector becomes increasingly dependent on support from companies as well as government and individuals. Finally, while there is still a long way to go before the CCI practices and policies of Australian companies become truly strategic and innovative, our study showed that, across all sectors, companies in Australia are developing new methods of CCI that break away from philanthropic and sponsorship traditions in favour of partnerships with nonprofits. Greater public scrutiny, increased shareholder activism and anti-globalisation social movements will ensure that CSR and CCI continue to be an accepted part of doing business. Reason Strongly Disagree Neutral Improve relations with surrounding communities 2 0 2 Improve the social and economic health of the surrounding 0 0 10 Improve the company's image 2 0 10 Improve employee morale 0 0 10 Implement corporate business 2 3 24 Improve the company's financial Reason Agree (%) Strongly Total (%) Improve relations with Improve the social and economic Improve the company's image 41 47 100 Improve employee morale 46 44 100 Implement corporate business 47 24 100 Improve the company's financial Table 2 COMPANIES THAT FORMALLY MEASURE AND CONSULT ON CCI ACTIVITIES BY Stakeholder group Measure (%) (n = 36) (a) Consult (%) (n = 59) (a) Employees 81 Notes: (a) Does not equal too as companies could select more than one group. (b) Responses to this option included: recipients of grants or sponsorship, suppliers, dealers or branches, non-government and nonprofit organisations, industry groups, media, analysts, government and special-interest groups. (c) Responses to this option included NGOs, community forums and market research organisations. Table 3 TYPES OF EMPLOYEE VOLUNTEER PROGRAMMES Type of EVP % (n = 36) (a) Paid release time for volunteer activity 56 Note: (a) Does not equal 100 as companies could select more than one group. Table 4 TYPES OF REWARD FOR PARTICIPATING IN VOLUNTARY ACTIVITIES Rewards for voluntary activity % (n = 35) Publication of volunteer activity in employee communications 86 Note: (a) Responses included offers of product, service or financial assistance to the organisation where the employee volunteers. Table 5 COMMUNICATING CCI POLICIES AND ACTIVITIES TO EMPLOYEES Communication mechanisms % (n = 57) Employee newsletters 89 Note: (a) Responses included: special events, brochures, posters, interactive activities, policy documents and manuals, TV and radio broadcasts, inductions and special training sessions. Table 6 THE VALUE OF COMPANY FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO NON-PROFIT Total value of financial and in-kind contributions % (n = 58) Aus$1-100,000 12 Table 7 HOW COMPANIES DETERMINE FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR NON-PROFITS Mode of determining support % (n = 59) (a) Part of a functional area's budget 42 Notes: (a) Does not equal 100 as companies could select more than one stakeholder. (b) Responses to this option included special funds and flexible arrangements. Table 8 KEY DIMENSIONS OF CORPORATE-NON-PROFIT PARTNERSHIPS Dimensions of partnerships % (n = 53) Cash donations 87 Note: (a) Responses included: advice, media support, fund-raising, and in-kind assistance. (1) Differences in the extent of partnerships across studies may also be due to differences in respondent perceptions about what constitutes a partnership. (2) The Charities Aid Foundation is a UK-based non-profit organisation that has operations in Australia. It collects funds via an employee payroll deduction programme called Give As You Earn to distribute to community organisations. Bibliography BCA (Business Council of Australia) (2001) Toward Sustainable. Development: How Leading Australian and Global Corporations are Contributing to Sustainable Development (draft report Melbourne: BCA). Bell, D. (2001) 'Australian banks are ahead of the game', The Australian Financial/Review, 21 August 2001: 55. Birch, D., and J. Batten (2001) Corporate Citizenship in Australia (Melbourne: Deakin University Corporate Citizenship Research Unit). Business Review Weekly (2000) 'Australia's Top 1000 Companies', Business Review Weekly, 17 November 2000. CCPA (Centre for Corporate Public Affairs) (2000) Corporate Community Involvement: Establishing a Business Case (Sydney: Business Council of Australia). Cronin, C. (2001) Corporate Social Responsibility in Australia: A Select Review of the Literature (background paper no. 3 Sydney: Research and Social Policy Team, The Smith Family). -- and G. Zappala (2002) The Coming of Age of Corporate Community Involvement: An Examination of Trends in Australia's Top Companies (working paper no. 6 Sydney: Research and Social Policy Team, The Smith Family). --, -- and M. Clarkson (2001) Measuring the Social Impact of Companies in Australia: The Smith Family's Participation in the Good Reputation Index (briefing paper no. 9 Sydney: Research and Social Policy Team, The Smith Family). Encel, S., and H. Studenski (2000) Partnership: A Review (Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW). Glazebrook, M. (2000) 'Corporate Citizenship in Australia', The Corporate Citizen 1.1: 6-11. Henderson, D. (2001) Misguided Virtue: False Notions of Corporate Social Responsibility (Wellington: New Zealand Business Roundtable). Hewett, J. (2001) 'Bank's tough guys see the light', The Sydney Morning Herald, 8-9 September 2001: 45, 49. Lee, L. (2001) 'Employee Volunteering: More than Good Feelings', Australian Journal on Volunteering 6.1: 31-39. Logan, D. (1997) Global Corporate Citizenship: Rationale and Strategies (Washington, DC: The Hitachi Foundation). Logsdon, J.M., M. Reiner and L Burke (1990) 'Corporate Philanthropy: Strategic Responses to the Firm's Stakeholders', Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 19: 93-109. Lyons, M. (1999) 'What Do We Know of Corporate Support for Australian Nonprofits? A Research Note', Third Sector Review 5.2: 71-80. -- (2001) Third Sector: The Contribution of Nonprofit and Cooperative Enterprise in Australia (Sydney: Allen & Unwin). Margolis, J.D., and J.P. Walsh (2001) Misery Loves Companies: Whither Social Initiatives by Business (working paper Cambridge, MA: Social Enterprise Initiative at Harvard Business School). Marx, J.D. (1999) 'Corporate Philanthropy: What is the Strategy?', Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28.2: 185-98. McClure, P. (2000) Participation Support for a More Equitable Society (Canberra: Reference Group on Welfare Reform). O'Halloran, L. (2001) Ethical Investment in Australia (Sydney: State Chamber of Commerce [NSW]). Peters, V. (2001) Taking the First Steps: An Overview of Corporate Social Responsibility in Australia (Sydney: State Chamber of Commerce [NSW]). Points of Light Foundation (2000) The Corporate Volunteer Program as a Strategic Resource (Washington, DC: Points of Light). Prescott, J. (1995) 'Business in the Community: Forging a New Partnership', paper presented at the Centre for Corporate Public Affairs Oration, Melbourne. State Chamber of Commerce (NSW) (2001) Corporate Social Responsibility Indicator Survey Quarter 1, June 2001. Sydney Morning Herald (2001) 'Good Reputation Index', Sydney Morning Herald, Special Insert, 22 October 2001. Troy, K. (1985) Studying and Assessing Community Needs: A Corporate Casebook (New York: The Conference Board). Wilcox, M. (2000) 'Centres of Energy', Community Link (National Bank) 12 (May 2000): 15-17. Weiser, J., and S. Zadek (2000) Conversations with Disbelievers: Persuading Companies to Address Social Challenges (New York: The Ford Foundation). Zappala G. (2001) 'From "Charity" to "Social Enterprise": Managing Volunteers in Public-Serving Nonprofits', Australian Journal on Volunteering 6.1: 41-49. -- and C. Cronin (2002) 'The Employee Dimensions of Corporate Community Involvement in Australia: Trends and Prospects', paper presented at the 6th ANZTSR Conference, UNITEC, Auckland, New Zealand, 27-29 November 2002. Gianni Zappala is Director and Principal Researcher of Orfeus Research. Prior to establishing Orfeus Research in January 2003, he was the Research Manager at The Smith Family (an independent Australian social enterprise) for three years. He has degrees in economics, industrial relations and political science from the Universities of Sydney, London and Cambridge and has held various teaching and research positions at the Universities of Sydney, Cambridge (Fellow of Emmanuel College), Wollongong and the Australian National University. He has published widely in the areas of labour markets and industrial relations, immigration and citizenship, Australian politics and economics, education, volunteering and corporate citizenship. In 2003, he developed and taught a new unit on corporate citizenship for the University of Sydney's Master of Public Policy programme. Orfeus Research, 292 Hawthorne Pde, Haberfield, NSW, 2045, Australia gianniz@orfeusresearch.com <mailto:gianniz@orfeusresearch.com> www.orfeusresearch.com.au <http://www.orfeusresearch.com.au> Caitlin Cronin is an independent researcher in Massachusetts. Prior to her return to the US she was a senior research assistant at The Smith Family. She received her doctorate for research on corporate and community support of education. She has held teaching and research positions at the Universities of Stanford and Sydney and has also worked for several non-profit organisations that promote business--education partnerships. Tracey C. Rembert
|
|
|
| Association for Sustainable & Responsible Investment in Asia © 2001 - Quotation, copying or use of materials from this website is permitted with due credit. Powered By Ideo Concepts |