Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Talk the Walk: Measuring the Impact of Strategic Philanthropy

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing a framework from institutional and legitimacy theory, supplemented by concepts from the accounting literature, this study uses longitudinal cross-sectional and cross-national data on over 500 firms listed in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) to empirically test whether these firms are strategic in their philanthropy as indicated by their measurement of the impact of their philanthropic activities along three dimensions – society, business, and reputation and stakeholder satisfaction. It is predicted that the variables’ company size, amount of philanthropic expenditure, region and industry influence the extent to which the various impact dimensions of philanthropy are measured. Though unexpected considering the lack of common practice in impact measurement, it is found that between 62 and 76% of the DJSI firms measure some sort of impact of their philanthropic activities, mostly impact on society and impact on reputation and stakeholder satisfaction. The number of firms that measure impact increases over the years and so does the number of firms that measure multiple dimensions of impact. Consist with our predictions, we find that larger firms and firms with relatively higher philanthropic expenditures are more likely to measure impact. Moreover, firms in the financial sector and firms from Europe and North America are also more likely to measure impact of their philanthropic activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A. and Ganapathi, J (2007) ‘Putting the s back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations’. The Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 836-863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., Millington, A., Pavelin, S.: 2006, ‘Is philanthropy strategic? An analysis of the management of charitable giving in large UK companies?’, Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(3): 234-245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, W.J.,Jr. and Waterhouse, J.H.: 1975, ‘Budgetary control and organization structure’, Journal of Accounting Research, 13(2): 177-203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchholtz, A., Amason, A.C. & Rutherfords, M., 1999, Beyond Resources: The mediating effect of management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy, Business & Society, 38(2): 167-187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burlingame DF, Frishkoff PA (1996) How Does Firm Size Affect Corporate Philanthropy? In: Burlingame DE, Young DR (eds), Corporate Philanthropy at the Crossroads. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 86-104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrigan, M (1997) ‘The great corporate give-away–can marketing do good for the ‘do-gooders’?’, European Business Journal, 9(4): 40-46.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll AB (1991b) Corporate Social Performance Measurement: A Commentary on Methods for Evaluating an Elusive Construct. In: Post JE (ed), Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol 12. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp 385-401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chenhall, R. and Langfield-Smith, K.: 1998, ‘Factors influencing the role of management accounting in the development of performance measures within organizational change programs’, Management Accounting Research, 9(4): 361-386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cinquini, L. and A. Tenucci: 2007, ‘Is the Adoption of Strategic Management Accounting Techniques Really ‘Strategy-Driven’? Evidence from a Survey’, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1012881.

  • Clark, C., Rosenzweig, W., Long, D., and Olsen, S.: 2004, Double bottom line project report: Assessing social impact in double bottom line ventures. methods catalog, Rockefeller Foundation, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis, B., Lacey, M., O’Hagan, S., Shah, R., Wainwright, S., and Wilding, K.: 2003, Case studies of impact assessment in small and medium-sized voluntary organizations (NCVO Publishers: London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, W.N.,III, and Worrell, D.L.: 2001, ‘Regulatory pressure and environmental management infrastructure and practices’, Business & Society, 40(3): 315-342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bakker F.G.A., Groenewegen P., den Hond F.: 2005, ‘A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on corporate social responsibility and corporate social performance’, Business and Society, 44(3): 283-317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dentchev, N.A.: 2004, ‘Corporate social performance as a business strategy’, Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4): 395-410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell,W.W.: 1983, ‘The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147-160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J.: 1999, Cannibal with forks, the triple bottom line of 21st century business (Capstone, Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, L.W., Keim, G.D., and Meiners, R.E.: 1982, ‘Corporate contributions: Altruistic or for-profit?’, The Academy of Management Journal, 25(1): 94-106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, P.C.: 2005, ‘The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective’, Academy of Management Review, 30(4): 777-798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granlund, M.: 2001, ‘Towards explaining stability in and around management accounting systems’, Management Accounting Research, 12(2): 141-166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, S.J.: 1980, ‘The impact of international accounting differences from a security-analysis perspective: Some European evidence’, Journal of Accounting Research, 18(1): 64-76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, S.J.: 1988, ‘Towards a theory of cultural influence on the development of accounting systems internationally’, Abacus, 24(1): 1-15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R.: 2001, ‘Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: What (if anything) have we learnt?’, Business Ethics, 10(1): 9-15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R.: 2002, ‘The social accounting project and accounting organizations and society privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique?’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27(7): 687-708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilding, C., Cravens, K.S., and Tayles, M.: 2000, ‘An international comparison of strategic management accounting practices’, Management Accounting Research, 11(1): 113-135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, D., Rogovsky, N., and Dunfee, T.W.: 2002, ‘The next wave of corporate community involvement: corporate social initiatives’, California Management Review, 44(2): 110-125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope, O., Ding, Y., Jeanjean, T., and Stolowy, H.: 2007, ‘Differences between domestic accounting standards and IAS: Measurement, determinants and implications’, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 26(1): 1-38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopper, T. and Powell, A.: 1985, ‘Making sense of research into the organizational and social aspects of management accounting: A review of its underlying assumptions’, Journal of Management Studies, 22(5): 429-465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B.W. and de Jesus Salazar, J.: 2006, ‘Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance’, Journal of Management Studies, 43(1): 75-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.C.: 2002, ‘Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2): 235-256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T.M.: 1995, ‘Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics’, The Academy of Management Review, 20(2): 404-437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, P.L.: 2001, ‘The international diffusion of new management accounting practices: The case of India’, Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 10(1): 85-109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khandwalla, P.N.: 1972, ‘The effect of different types of competition on the use of management controls’, Journal of Accounting Research, 10(2): 275-285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk A (2004) MVO vanuit bedrijfskundig en beleidsmatig perspectief, het belang van duurzaam management. Management en Organisatie 4/5:112-126 (in Dutch).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A.: 2005, ‘Environmental reporting by multinationals from the triad: Convergence or divergence?’, Management International Review, 45(1): 145-166.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeClair MS, Gordon K (2000) Corporate Support for Artistic and Cultural Activities: What Determines the Distribution of Corporate Giving? Journal of Cultural Economics 24:225-241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J., Reiner, M. & Burke, L., 1990, ‘Corporate Philanthropy: Strategic Responses to the firm’s stakeholders’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 19(2): 93-109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J.M. and Wood, D.J.: 2002, ‘Business citizenship: From domestic to global level of analysis’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2): 155-187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maas KEH, Liket KC (2010) Social Impact Measurement: Classification of Methods. In: Burritt R et al (eds) Environmental Management Accounting, Supply Chain Management, and Corporate Responsibility Accounting. Springer Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J.D. and Walsh, J.P.: 2001, People and profits: The search for a link between a company’s social and financial performance (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ).

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J.D. and Walsh, J.P.: 2003, ‘Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2): 268-305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolish, J. D, H. A. Elfenbein and J. P. Walsh: 2007, ‘Does It Pay to Be Good? A Meta-Analysis and Redirection of Research on the Relationship Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance’, Working Paper, http://stakeholder.bu.edu/2007/Docs/Walsh,%20Jim%20Does%20It%20Pay%20to%20Be%20Good.pdf.

  • McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D.: 2000, ‘Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification?’, Strategic Management Journal, 21(5): 603-609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D.: 2001, ‘Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective’, The Academy of Management Review, 26(1): 117-127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menard, S.: 1995, Applied logistic regression analysis (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, K.A.: 1981, ‘The design of the corporate budgeting system: Influences on managerial behaviour and performance’, The Accounting Review, 56(4): 813-829.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B.: 1977, ‘Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony’, The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340-363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, R.: 1990, Classical and modern regression with application (Duxbury, Boston, MA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L., and Rynes, S.L.: 2003, ‘Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis’, Organization Studies, 24(3): 403-441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D. L., Swift, T. A., Humphrey, C., Bowerman, M.: 2000, ‘The new social audits: Accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of social champions?’, The European Accounting Review, 9(1): 81-98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Quarter, J., Richmond, B. J.: 2001, ‘Accounting for social value in non-profits and for-profits’, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(1): 75-85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saiia, D.: 1999, Strategic Philanthropy: Corporate Resources for the Public Good. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.

  • Saiia, D.: 2001, ‘Corporate citizenship and corporate philanthropy: Strategic philanthropy is good corporate citizenship’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 1(2): 1 -19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saiia, D.H., Carroll, A.B., and Buchholtz, A.K.: 2003, ‘Philanthropy as strategy: When corporate charity “begins at home”‘, Business & Society, 42(2): 169-201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R.: 2000, Contemporary environmental accounting, issues, concepts and practice (Greenleaf Publishing, London, UK).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuder, H., Ramanathan, K.V.: 1984, ‘Accounting and corporate accountability: An extended comment’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9(3-4): 409-415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, B., Morris, S.A., and Bartkus, B.R.: 2003, ‘Comparing big givers and small givers: Financial correlates of corporate philanthropy’, Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3): 195-211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, B., Morris, S.A., and Bartkus, B.R.: 2004, ‘Having, giving, and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance’, Business & Society, 43(2): 135-161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shropshire, C. and Hillman, A.J.: 2007, ‘A longitudinal study of significant change in stakeholder management’, Business & Society, 46(1): 63-87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., 1996, Desperately seeking data: Why research is crucial to new corporate philanthropy. In D.F.Burlingame & D.R. Young (Eds.), Corporate Philanthropy at the crossroads (pp. 1-6). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparkes, R. and Cowton, C.J.: 2004, ‘The Maturing of Socially Responsible Investment: A Review of the Developing Link with Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1): 45-57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tokarski, K.: 1999, ‘Give and thou shall receive’, Public Relations Quarterly, 44(2): 34-40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Oosterhout, J. and P. P. M. A. R. Heugens, 2006, ‘Much Ado About Nothing: A Conceptual Critique of CSR’, ERIM Report Series in Management Research.

  • Varadarajan, P.R., Menon, A.: 1988, ‘Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy’, Journal of Marketing, 52(3): 58-74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vishwanathan, P.: 2010, ‘The Elusive Relationship Between Corporate Social and Financial Perfor- mance: Meta-Analyzing Four Decades of Misguided Evidence’, Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings.

  • Waddock, S.A. and Graves, S.B.: 1997, ‘The corporate social performance-financial performance link’, Strategic Management Journal, 18(4): 303-319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welford, R.: 2005, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia: 2004 Survey Results’, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 17:33-52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, B.: 2002, The Sustainable Advantage, Seven Business Case Benefits of a Triple Bottom Line. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams RJ, Barrett JD (2000) Corporate Philanthropy, Criminal Activity, and Firm Reputation: Is There a Link? Journal of Business Ethics, 26(4): 341-350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D.J.: 1991, ‘Corporate social performance revisited’, The Academy of Management Review, 16(4): 691-718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood DJ, Jones RE (1995) Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 3(3): 229-267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, H.: 2004, The impact of impact assessment: the experience of rural voluntary and community organizations and evaluating change (NCVO Publications: London).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Karen Maas

  2. Erasmus Centre for Strategic Philanthropy (ECSP), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Kellie Liket

Authors
  1. Karen Maas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kellie Liket
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen Maas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maas, K., Liket, K. Talk the Walk: Measuring the Impact of Strategic Philanthropy. J Bus Ethics 100, 445–464 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0690-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0690-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation