Corporate Donor–Charitable Organization Partners

Abstract

Using the coorientation model, this study examines the views of leading U.S. corporations and charitable organizations about types of relationships between corporate donors and charities that receive corporate contributions. Results of the national expert survey show that both corporate giving officers and senior fundraisers of charitable organizations perceive the relationship as more communal than either one-way patronizing or two-way exchange. Findings from the coorientation analysis illustrate that the two groups are in a state of consensus on the patronizing and communal relationship types while a state of false consensus exists on the exchange relationship type; that is, charities wrongly assume that corporate donors desire a relationship based on the dominant characteristic of solid exchange or quid pro quo.

Keywords

corporate donors charitable organizations relationship management strategic corporate philanthropy coorientation model

Introduction

As society has become increasingly interconnected, many social entities create collaborations or have partnerships with other sectors to resolve complex social problems. It is often called cross-sector partnership or interorganizational relationship, and has become common in democratic societies (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006). In this vein, for-profit organizations actively seek partnerships with the nonprofit sector (Kolk, van Tulder, & Kostwinder, 2008). To fulfill their social responsibility, many corporations implement philanthropic activities by donating cash and noncash resources to nonprofit organizations. Corporate philanthropy can be understood as a practice of cross-sector partnership between corporate donors and nonprofit charitable organizations (Foster, Meinhard, Berger, & Krpan, 2009). The current study examines the partnership or relationship between for-profit and nonprofit organizations from a relationship management perspective.

To carry out both economic and social responsibilities, as well as to satisfy shareholders and other stakeholders, corporate philanthropy has developed into strategic philanthropy (Austin, 2000; Marx, 1999; Porter & Kramer, 2002; Smith, 1994). Whereas a traditional philanthropic approach is based on pure altruism, the underlying assumption of strategic philanthropy is mixed motives, the combination of both self-interest and altruism (Kelly, 1998). Porter and Kramer (2002) advocated a mixed-motives model of corporate philanthropy, called “convergence of interest” (p. 59). By identifying interests they have in common with nonprofits and targeting corporate contributions to converged interests, companies can pursue both social and economic benefits, thereby maximizing philanthropic value.

The relationships between corporate donors and nonprofit organizations also have advanced as corporate philanthropy has evolved. Whereas traditional corporate philanthropy, based on pure altruism, is characterized by a benevolent or patronizing relationship, strategic philanthropy, based on mixed motives, is characterized by an interdependent or symmetrical relationship between corporate donors and nonprofit organizations (Austin, 2000).

This cross-sector partnership has drawn the attention of relationship management scholars whose research focuses on developing and maintaining quality relationships between an organization and its publics (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). Both corporate donors and nonprofit organizations consider each other an important stakeholder who may influence or be influenced by the other party (Dunn, 2010). From the nonprofit perspective, corporate donors—one of the three primary sources of gifts, along with individuals and foundations—are considered a key public who helps determine the success and survival of charitable nonprofits. From the corporate side, the importance of quality relationships with nonprofit organizations is well documented (Austin, 2000; Porter & Kramer, 2002).

As the partnership between corporate donors and nonprofit organizations has become more strategic, the level of engagement between the two parties has increased and both sides have experienced collaborative value creation (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a, 2012b). In this sense, it is imperative to examine how both corporate donors and charitable organizations perceive their relationship with each other. The current study, therefore, explores relationship perceptions of the two parties. It proposes three types of relationships that corporate donors and charitable organizations may have—patronizing/philanthropic, exchange/transactional, and communal/integrative—based on the literature. Also, the study employs the coorientation model to measure the two sides of the corporate donor–charitable organization relationship, addressing the extent to which leading U.S. corporations and charitable organizations agree or disagree on the types of relationship between the two parties.

Literature Review

This section reviews literature relevant to the study. It starts with an overview of the mixed-motive model of giving as a framework for understanding strategic corporate philanthropy. It then examines strategic corporate philanthropy from a relationship management perspective. Types of corporate donor–charitable organization relationships are discussed, and the coorientation model is explained as a tool to assess the two-sided relationship. The section concludes by stating the research questions that guided the study.

Mixed-Motive Model as a Framework for Understanding Strategic Corporate Philanthropy

Corporations have been engaged in philanthropic activities in the United States for more than a century (Koten, 1997). Corporate philanthropy evolved into strategic corporate giving, the integration of marketing practice and socially responsible activities ( Logsdon, Reinter, & Burke, 1990; Smith, 1994). Strategic corporate philanthropy can fulfill multiple obligations of companies as a profit maker and a corporate citizen (Buchholtz, Amason, & Rutherford, 1999). Scholars from diverse disciplines have recommended strategic philanthropy as a win–win strategy for companies to satisfy all their stakeholders—such as investors, employees, customers, government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and communities—who influence a company’s viability (Kelly, 1998; Logsdon et al., 1990; Porter & Kramer, 2002).

Strategic corporate philanthropy can be understood in the context of the mixed-motive model. Scholars of philanthropy and nonprofit management almost universally have adopted the mixed-motive model of giving as a theory fundamental to understanding the motivations of donors, whether individuals, foundations, or corporations (Kelly, 1998). The model holds that philanthropy reflects neither pure altruism nor pure egoism; it involves mixed motives: to fulfill the donor’s interests in self and in a common good, as represented by the mission of the charitable organization receiving the gift.

Corporate contributions often are viewed as suspect in that they are perceived as acts of “enlightened self-interest.” Yet, according to the mixed-motive model, self-interest—defined by Martin (1994) as “caring for one’s own well-being” (p. 123)—is evident in gifts from all three donor types, including individuals. Martin explained that altruistic and self-interested motives function in tandem but shift in degrees of strength and significance on almost a case-by-case basis. The philanthropy scholar also argued that the presence of self-interest engages donors in relationships that are stronger and more enduring than ones based only on altruism.

Strategic Corporate Philanthropy From a Relationship Management Perspective

The concept of strategic corporate philanthropy is deserving of attention from public relations scholars, because it is inherently related to the function of public relations. J. E. Grunig (2000) maintained that the core value of public relations is collaboration, considering mutual benefits of both an organization and its publics. Since Ferguson (1984) pointed out that relationship management is the primary role of public relations, many public relations scholars have studied the contribution of public relations to an organization from a relationship management perspective (e.g., Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Ledingham, 2003). Ledingham and Bruning (1998) also argued that “the essence of public relations is relationship management . . . to use communication strategically to create, develop, and nurture a relationship between an organization and its key publics” (p. 2). As Broom (2009) defined it, public relations is “the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends” (p.7).

The relationship management approach not only widens the scope of public relations practice within an organization, from a mere publicity or media relations function to collaborative efforts for mutual benefits (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; Coombs & Holladay, 2007), but it also offers an alternative method to evaluate the effectiveness of public relations (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). Many public relations scholars have contributed to enriching the relationship management literature by exploring multiple dimensions of organization–public relationships (e.g., Hon & J.E. Grunig, 1999), various types of relationships (e.g., Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; Hon & J.E. Grunig, 1999), strategies to enhance quality relationships (e.g., Bortree, 2010; Ki & Hon, 2007; Waters, 2011), and dynamic linkages among relationship dimensions, publics’ attitudes toward the organization, and publics’ behavioral intentions (e.g., Bortree, 2010; Bruning, Castle, & Schrepher, 2004; Ki & Hon, 2007).

By building and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships with their publics, organizations can overcome crises and challenges (Ledingham, 2003). Strong relationships with beneficiary organizations may appease skepticism about corporate giving. From a systems theory perspective, relationships help an organization manage its interdependence with the environment (L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Ehling, 1992). Addressing corporate philanthropy, Levy (1999) stressed the importance of relationships between companies and charitable organizations, arguing that corporate giving is not one-way but creates mutual benefits and interaction between a donor company and a nonprofit grantee. Thus, the relationship between for-profit and charitable organizations should be considered as something more than a one-way benevolent relationship between wealthy donors and dependent recipients. Porter and Kramer (2002) also emphasized the value of partnerships with charitable organizations in strategic corporate philanthropy, noting that “selecting a more effective grantee or partner organization will lead to more social impact per dollar expended” (p. 63). Given the mutual benefits both corporate donors and charitable organizations gain from strategic corporate philanthropy and the potential impact of each party, it is important to study how the relationships between corporate donors and charitable organizations are defined by both sides.

Types of Corporate Donor–Charitable Organization Relationships

Public relations scholars have explored various types of relationships that an organization may have with its publics. For example, Bruning and Ledingham (1999) found from an empirical study that an organization and its publics may have three different types of relationships: professional, community, and personal. Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) proposed two different types of organization–public relationships: exchange and communal. While many relationships start as an exchange, or transactional relationship, some turn into communal relationships as the parties start to care about the other party and cultivate the relationship (Clark & Mills, 1993; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) argued that public relations practitioners aim to achieve communal relationships, whereas an exchange relationship is a more marketing-related outcome.

After conducting in-depth interviews with senior managers of charitable organizations, Rumsey and White (2007) argued that the relationship between charitable organizations and corporate donors has evolved from a traditional one-way patronizing relationship, represented by wealthy donors and poor recipients, to a more symmetrical relationship whereby companies and charitable organizations are interdependent and pursue mutual benefits. The public relations scholars also found from their interviews that charitable organizations want a symmetrical relationship with their corporate donors, “a genuine partnership with a mutual value exchange and a roughly equal division of control and governance” (p. 22).

Austin (2000) also asserted that collaborative relationships between charitable organizations and companies have shifted from what he called traditionally philanthropic to strategic cooperation. He described the three different stages that compose the collaboration continuum: philanthropic, transactional, and integrative. Austin’s (2000) transactional and integrative relationships are compatible with Hon and J. E. Grunig’s (1999) exchange and communal relationships, respectively. Whereas both exchange/transactional and communal/integrative relationships can be observed in various organization–public relationships, the patronizing/philanthropic relationship may be unique to the nonprofit sector. Therefore, the present study adopts the three types of relationships to examine relationships between corporate donors and charitable organizations.

Patronizing/Philanthropic Relationship

Characterized by benevolent donors and appreciative recipients, this relationship represents altruistic corporate philanthropy and mutual benefits are not significant (Austin, 2000). Rumsey and White (2007) viewed this stage as a one-way patronizing relationship between powerful donors and dependent recipients. In the patronizing/philanthropic relationship, according to Austin (2000), the engagement between two organizations is limited to an “annual solicitation from an NPO that elicits a donation from a corporation,” such as submitting a written request for an unrestricted contribution and gratefully acknowledging the gift (p. 20). Austin claimed this primitive relationship is the most common, but many organizations are moving on to the next stage. From the perspective of corporate donors, Seitanidi and Ryan (2007) viewed the first stage as “asymmetrical in nature, as the underpinning motivation is altruism, denoting one-way giving without direct (economic or noneconomic) rewards” (p. 248).

Exchange/Transactional Relationship

This relationship is marketing-oriented and based on give-and-take. In an exchange/transactional relationship, one party gives benefits to the other only because of the expectation of benefits to be returned in the future (Austin, 2000; Clark & Mills, 1993; J. E. Grunig, 2000; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). In this context, a beneficiary party has an obligation or debt to repay the favor. The relationship is based on marketing’s basic concept of quid pro quo expectation—the trading of benefits between organizations and markets. Compared to the patronizing/philanthropic relationship, the exchange/transactional relationship is two-way. While both charitable organizations and companies derive benefits from the relationship, the benefits basically are commercial and focus on the deal with exchange partners. Therefore, although the collaboration is two-way, it is narrowly defined and limited in the benefits it offers. Kelly (1998) asserted that the benefits of cause-related marking are unbalanced; corporations usually receive far more than their charitable partners, who often only get a penny or less for every product sold. This relationship is similar to pure self-interest.

Communal/Integrative Relationship

In a communal/integrative relationship, an organization provides benefits in response to the need of the other or with concern for the welfare of the other (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). Austin (2000) asserted that, in this relationship, both organizations’ missions and activities are equally respected. Organizational integration of the two parties and more collective actions are observed. Austin described the stage as a “mutual mission relationship” that has the quality of “boundarylessness” (p. 26). It is beyond the commercial exchange relationship. J. E. Grunig (2000) argued that a communal relationship is relevant as an outcome of two-way symmetrical communication. According to Clark and Mills (1993), a communal relationship is not completely altruistic; rather it ultimately results in mutual benefits for both parties. In other words, this relationship is compatible with the mixed-motive model of giving. An organization that provides benefits to another party may benefit itself by building a positive reputation and gaining more support from its publics (J. E. Grunig, 2000). Characterized by longevity, mutual benefits, high investment, commitment, and adaptive behavior (Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007), the communal relationship results in interdependence and closeness, two-way communication or dialogue, and trust.

In sum, relationships between corporate donors and charitable organization recipients can be classified into three distinct types based on three different giving motives: (a) patronizing/philanthropic relationships, based on pure altruism; (b) exchange/transactional relationships, based on pure self-interest; and (c) communal/integrative relationships, based on mixed motives. Austin (2000) insisted that it is not necessary for every relationship to go through these stages sequentially. Figure 1 presents the three types of relationships between corporate donors and charitable organizations by level of cooperation and direction of communication.

Figure 1.

Three types of relationships between corporate donors and charitable organizations.

Using the Coorientation Model to Explain Corporate Donor–Charitable Organization Relationship Types

The coorientation model can be used to explain how corporate donors and charitable organizations perceive and evaluate the relationship between the two parties. Broom and Dozier (1990) argued that the coorientation model is a useful way to compare a company’s perspective on an issue with that of its stakeholders.

With theoretical roots in Newcomb’s (1953) symmetry model that explained the mutual psychological orientation of two individuals to an object, the coorientation model was expanded into mass communication studies by McLeod and Chaffee (1973). They attempted to understand people’s behavior, which is influenced by not only their internal thinking but also by their orientation to others and their perceptions of the views that other people hold. After Broom and Dozier (1990) introduced the theory to the public relations field, it became a model representing the mutual perceptions of an organization–public relationship. Kelly (1998) revised the model to describe the relationship between a charitable nonprofit organization and an enabling public, its donors.

According to Kelly (1998), the coorientation model includes four elements: (a) the organization’s views on an issue; (b) a public’s views on the issue; (c) the organization’s perception, or prediction, of the public’s views; and (d) the public’s perception, or prediction, of the organization’s view. Figure 2 presents the coorientation model of the views of corporate donors and charitable organizations on the issue of relationship types between the two parties.

Figure 2.

Coorientation model examining types of relationships between corporate donors and charitable organizations.

The interaction between the four elements of the coorientation model yields three measures: agreement, perceived agreement, and accuracy (Kelly, 1998). As shown in Figure 2, agreement refers to the degree to which the organization and the public share similar views on an issue, in this case, the degree to which corporate donors and charitable organizations agree with each other on the relationship types. Perceived agreement, or congruency, is the extent to which one side’s view matches its perception of the other side’s view on the issue. Accuracy is the degree to which one side’s perception or evaluation of the other side’s views concurs with the actual views or cognitions of the other side. Measuring the views of both corporate donors and charitable organizations on the issue of relationship types allows this study to determine the level of the three coorientation measures of agreement, perceived agreement, and accuracy on the issue.

Broom and Dozier (1990) recommended researchers calculate D-scores, the mean differences between two sides’ ratings on issue items for both agreement and perceived agreement. The higher the D-score, the lower the level of agreement or perceived agreement is on an issue. Based on D-score results, Broom and Dozier classified coorientation between an organization and a public into four states: (a) consensus, (b) dissensus, (c) false consensus, and (d) false conflict (or false dissensus). Consensus occurs when the organization and the public agree on an issue. In this state, both sides fundamentally share the same view and they recognize the agreement. Dissensus, the opposite of consensus, occurs when the two sides disagree and they know that disagreement exists. The other two states result from inaccurate perceptions about the views that the other side holds about the issue. False consensus occurs when both groups believe that they agree on an issue in spite of actual disagreement, whereas false conflict exists when each party misjudges its disagreement on the issue.

Given the usefulness of the coorientation model, it has been employed by several studies to examine relationships between groups of people who commonly interact and relationships between organizations and one of their key publics. For example, scholars have explored the sometimes adversarial relationship between public relations practitioners and journalists (Kopenhaver, Martinson, & Ryan, 1984; Sallot, Steinfatt, & Salwen, 1998; Shin & Cameron, 2005) and between public relations practitioners and lawyers (Reber, Cropp, & Cameron, 2001). Connelly and Knuth (2002) studied two groups involved in an environmental issue and found that community leaders and local residents in the Hudson River Estuary area had different perspectives on the ecosystem restoration of the area. Kelly, Thompson, and Waters (2006) applied the coorientation model to the hospice–physician relationship and found that hospice leaders inaccurately perceived a high level of disagreement on the issue of timely referral, when, in fact, both they and physicians agreed on the issue. Waters (2007) examined the quality of relationships between three nonprofit hospitals and their individual donors and revealed differences in the levels of agreement, perceived agreement, and accuracy on relationship quality.

The coorientation model is powerful and useful, yet the model is underutilized and too few studies apply the model to measure both sides’ views on issues (Broom, 2009). Dozier and Ehling (1992) stated, “Misperceptions can lead to catastrophic actions whenever the dominant coalition sees agreement or disagreement when none actually exists” (p. 181). Their warning applies to not only for-profit organizations and their publics but also to charitable organizations and their relationships with donors. The coorientation model may help diagnose perception gaps between corporate donors and charitable organizations on the type of relationship they have with each other.

Research Questions

Using coorientation methodology, the study explores the following four research questions:

Research Question 1. To what extent do corporate donors and charitable organizations agree/disagree on the relationship types—patronizing, exchange, and communal—practiced by corporate donors and charitable organizations?

Research Question 2. To what extent do corporate donors and charitable organizations perceive agreement/disagreement between themselves and the other side on the three relationship types?

Research Question 3. To what extent are corporate donors and charitable organizations accurate/inaccurate in predicting the other side’s views on the three relationship types?

Research Question 4. What coorientation state exists between corporate donors and charitable organizations on the three relationship types?

Method

Survey Sample and Data Collection

Pareto’s principle, or the 80-20 rule, is valid in philanthropy and fundraising, because at least 80% of the dollars given is from 20% of the donors (Goodwin, 2004). Thus, this study was designed to focus on the top U.S. corporate donors and charitable organizations.

For a sampling frame of corporate donors, the study used the list of Fortune 500 companies, which is compiled and ranked according to revenue. Seifert, Morris, and Bartkus’ (2004) study showed that corporate revenue is one of the major determinants of engaging in corporate philanthropy. Corporate giving officers, those with the highest title, were selected to represent corporate donors’ views as they hold primary responsibility for administrating contributions programs. After compiling a contact list from the companies’ websites and the National Directory of Corporate Giving, 274 corporate giving officers of respective companies were selected as a sample.

For a sampling frame of charitable organizations, the study used the “Philanthropy 400” list compiled by The Chronicle of Philanthropy. This list consists of the 400 nonprofit charitable organizations that raised the most money from private sources in a given calendar year. Senior fundraisers, those with the highest title, were selected to represent charitable organizations’ views as they hold primary responsibility for managing fundraising programs. Similar to the procedure used for corporate donors, names and contact information were collected from the charitable organizations’ websites, and 224 senior fundraisers of respective charitable organizations were selected.

A pretest was conducted to check the design adequacy of the data-gathering instrument. No specific problems with the questionnaire’s design, wording, or procedure were found. A traditional mail survey, including three waves of mailing, was conducted for the main study. Usable survey questionnaires were collected from 41 corporate giving officers and 72 senior fundraisers, yielding response rates of 15.4% and 32.7%, respectively.

Measurement Instrument

Hon and J. E. Grunig’s (1999) measurement scales of exchange and communal relationships were slightly modified and adopted for this study to measure types of relationships between corporate donors and charitable organizations. The questionnaire measured a third relationship category, patronizing relationship. As there were no previous empirical studies that measured this type of relationship, the researchers constructed original scales drawn from Austin’s (2000) work, which provided detailed descriptions with vivid examples of the one-way patronizing relationship between corporate donors and nonprofit organizations. All relationship type items were measured on a 9-point agree/disagree scale, with a score of 4.5 being the midpoint between agreement and disagreement. Two versions of the questionnaire were tailored to their respective respondents, corporate giving officers of corporate donors and senior fundraisers of charitable organizations.

The reliability of the scales for the three different types of relationships varied. Because this study was exploratory and included original scales, some of the items showed less-than-desirable reliability. Cronbach’s α for the exchange relationship type were found to be strongly reliable for both our view and other side’s view, ranging from 0.75 to 0.82. In general, α for the scales measuring the patronizing relationship type for both groups also were good, ranging from 0.56 to 0.70. However, α for the communal relationship type scales ranged from 0.20 to 0.52, and the reliability of other side’s view was higher than for our view. Table 1 presents the measurement items of the relationship types, as well as Cronbach’s α for the scales and item-total correlations.

Table 1.

Measurement items and Cronbach’s α of relationship types.

		Corporate donors’ views(Corporate giving officers n=41)			Charitable organizations’ views(Senior fundraisers n=72)
Relationship type	Item	Our view	Other side’s view	Item	Our view	Other side’s view
Patronizing	Corporate giving officers such as me have minimal personal connection to the cause of recipient organizations. (0.34/0.20)	0.59	0.56	Corporate giving officers have minimal personal connection to our cause. (0.42/0.50)	0.67	0.70
	Other than making contributions, my corporation rarely interacts with recipient organizations. (0.40/0.46)			Other than making contributions, corporate donors rarely interact with my organization. (0.52/0.55)
	Engagement between my corporation and charitable organizations we support is limited to annual solicitations. (0.51/0.51)			Engagement between corporations and my charitable organization is limited to annual solicitations. (.50/.52)
Exchange	My corporation will compromise with charitable organizations when we know that we will gain something. (0.58/0.56)	0.79	0.82	Corporate donors will compromise with my charitable organization when they know they will gain something. (0.43/0.37)	0.79	0.75
	Whenever my corporation makes a contribution to a charitable organization, we generally expect something in return. (0.69/0.67)			Whenever corporations make a contribution to my charitable organization, they generally expect something in return. (0.71/0.64)
	My corporation takes care of charitable organizations that are likely to reward the company. (0.53/0.63)			Corporate donors take care of charitable organizations that are likely to reward the company. (0.65/0.57)
	Even when my corporation has had a long-time relationship with a charitable organization, we still expect something in return when we extend a favor. (0.60/0.69)			Even when a corporate donor has had a long-time relationship with my organization, it still expects something in return whenever it extends us a favor. (0.63/0.60)
Communal	My corporation considers charitable organizations as strategic partners in gaining mutual benefits. (0.12/0.23)	0.20	0.48	Corporate donors consider my charitable organization as a strategic partner in gaining mutual benefits.(0.14/0.29)	0.37	0.52
	My corporation is very concerned about the welfare of recipient charitable organizations. (0.21/0.46)			Corporate donors are very concerned about the welfare of my charitable organization. (0.30/0.37)
	Aiding charitable organizations while achieving corporate goals gives us pleasure. (0.02/0.22)			Corporate donors get pleasure from helping us while achieving their goals. (0.21/0.36)

Note: Item-total correlations are presented in parentheses (our view/other side’s view).

Data Analysis

Using SPSS^©, the study calculated mean scores for each side’s viewpoint on the relationship type variables and mean scores for each side’s estimate of the other side’s agreement/disagreement on the relationship types. Since the main purpose of the study was to compare two different groups on relationship scores, independent t-tests were used to determine statistically significant differences between groups, and paired sample t-tests were used for perceived agreement/disagreement. In addition, D-scores for the relationship type variables were calculated by subtracting mean scores of the two groups on views and perceived views.

Results

Demographic Profile

The corporate participants in the study represented a wide variety of industries, from agriculture to forestry to transportation. Of the 41 corporate giving officers, the majority were female (62.5%) and Caucasian (82.5%). The plurality (48.8%) worked in the corporate contributions department/corporate foundation, whereas the remainder worked in various departments, such as communication/public relations and community relations. The majority of respondents (53.8%) were the head of corporate contributions for their company.

Similarly, the majority of the 72 respondents representing charitable organizations were the head of fundraising or corporate relations for their organization (61.4%) and were female (56.3%) and Caucasian (93.0%). The majority of senior fundraisers (63.9%) worked for charitable organizations with education missions, although a variety of missions was represented. Demographics and employer characteristics of both corporate giving officers and senior fundraisers indicated that the respondents did not differ from the populations from which they were selected; in other words, respondents represent the top U.S. corporate donors and charitable organizations.

Agreement/Disagreement

The study’s first research question sought to determine whether corporate donors and charitable organizations view the relationship with each other similarly regarding the three different relationship types: patronizing, exchange, and communal.

As shown in Table 2, analysis revealed that corporate giving officers and senior fundraisers agree on the communal and patronizing relationship types, rating the former high in their organization’s view of the corporate donor–charitable organization relationship and the latter low. However, they hold different viewpoints on the exchange relationship type. Both corporate giving officers (M = 7.52, SD = 1.03) and senior fundraisers (M = 6.69, SD = 1.19) strongly agree on the communal relationship type, which means that scores were substantially higher than the 4.5 neutral point of the scale. Thus the two organizational groups view each other as strategic partners based on mixed motives. The two groups also agree on the patronizing relationship. Corporate giving officers (M = 3.43, SD = 1.61) and senior fundraisers (M = 3.25, SD = 1.67) both negatively evaluated statements describing this relationship type; the mean scores were uniformly below the scale’s neutral point. The D-score for communal relationships was 0.83, while the D-score for patronizing relationships was 0.18.

Table 2.

Agreement/disagreement between corporate donors and charitable organizations on three relationship types.

	Corporate donors’ views(n=41)		Charitable organizations’views(n=72)
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	D-score
Patronizing relationship	3.43	1.61	3.25	1.67	0.18
Exchange relationship	2.88	1.70	5.36	1.94	2.48***
Communal relationship	7.52	1.03	6.69	1.19	0.83***

Note: ^***p < .001.

On the other hand, the two groups disagree about the exchange relationship type. Corporate giving officers strongly disagree that their companies have an exchange relationship with charitable organizations (M = 2.88, SD = 1.70), whereas senior fundraisers moderately agree that the exchange relationship describes the corporate donor–charitable organization relationship (M = 5.36, SD = 1.94). The D-score on this relationship type was 2.48, and the difference in mean scores was statistically significant: t(107) = −6.67, p < .000.

Therefore, the answer to research question 1 is that corporate donors and charitable organizations agree on the communal and patronizing relationships, but they disagree on the exchange relationship type.

Perceived Agreement

The second research question sought to determine whether each side of the corporate donor–charitable organization relationship perceives agreement with the other party about the three different relationship types. Focusing first on the corporate donor side, the study found that corporate giving officers’ estimates of charitable organizations’ views are in accord with their companies’ views on all three relationship types. Corporate respondents predicted that charitable organizations strongly agree on the communal relationship type and disagree on both the patronizing and exchange relationship types, as their companies do.

However, even though corporate giving officers perceive agreement between the two parties, there were statistically significant differences in the degree of perceived agreement on all three relationship types. Corporate giving officers estimated that charitable organizations agree less than their companies do on the communal relationship type, D-score = 0.55; t(34) = 3.04, p < 0.01, and disagree less on the exchange relationship, D-score = 1.2; t(35) = −5.47, p < .000, and the patronizing relationship, D-score = 0.48; t(36) = -2.31, p < 0.05.

Turning to the charitable organization side, results show that nonprofit respondents also perceive agreement on all three relationship types. Senior fundraisers estimated that, like their organizations, corporate donors disagree with the patronizing relationship type and agree with the exchange and communal relationship types. However, senior fundraisers perceive a small but significant difference in the degree of agreement on the exchange relationship type: t(69) = 2.72, p < 0.01. Differences in the degree of perceived agreement on the other two relationship types were not significant.

In summary, the answer to research question 2 is that both corporate donors and charitable organizations perceive agreement with each other on all three relationship types, although both sides also perceive differences in the degree of agreement.

Accuracy

Research question 3 asked how accurate the two sides are in their estimates of each other’s views on the three relationship types. This question was answered by comparing the estimates of one group with the actual evaluations by the other group. Examining the accuracy of corporate donors first, corporate giving officers are inaccurate regarding the exchange relationship type. They predict that charitable organizations disagree with the exchange relationship type, when, in fact, senior fundraisers of those organizations actually agree with that relationship type. The difference between corporate giving officers’ estimates and senior fundraisers’ evaluations was statistically significant: D-score = 1.27; t(104) = 3.20, p < .01. Regarding the other two relationship types, corporate giving officers are accurate in their estimates of charitable organizations’ views. t-test results showed no significant differences between their estimates and senior fundraisers’ evaluations of the patronizing and communal relationship types.

Turning to charitable organizations, senior fundraisers also are accurate in predicting the other’s side’s evaluation of both the patronizing and communal relationships, although they underestimated the views of corporate donors on both relationship types. Furthermore, the degree of underestimation on the communal relationship was statistically significant: D-score = 0.70; t(108) = 3.01, p < .01. Regarding the exchange relationship type, like their corporate counterparts, senior fundraisers are inaccurate in predicting the other side’s view. Senior fundraisers estimated that corporate donors agree with the exchange relationship type, when, in fact, corporate giving officers strongly disagree that their companies have an exchange relationship with charitable organizations. The difference between senior fundraisers’ estimates and corporate giving officers’ evaluations was statistically significant: D-score = 2.14; t(107) = −6.21, p < .001. Answering research question 3, corporate donors and charitable organizations are accurate in their estimates of the other’s views on the patronizing and communal relationship types, but both sides are inaccurate in their estimates on the exchange relationship type. While corporate donors disagree with the exchange relationship type and perceive that charitable organizations also disagree, charitable organizations agree with that type of relationship and perceive that corporate donors also agree.

Concluding this section, it is important to note that D-scores for each relationship type show that corporate giving officers’ estimates were much closer to senior fundraisers’ actual views than were senior fundraisers’ estimates of corporate giving officers’ views.

States of Coorientation

The fourth research question called for an examination of the states of coorientation. The coorientation model posits four states: consensus, dissensus, false consensus, and false conflict. Recapping the study’s findings, corporate donors and charitable organizations are in agreement on the patronizing and communal relationship types, but they disagree on the exchange relationship type. Yet the two sides of corporate philanthropy—company donors and charitable nonprofit recipients—perceive agreement with each other on all three relationship types, including the exchange relationship.

Applying the coorientation states to these findings, the answer to the final research question is that corporate donors and charitable organizations are in a state of consensus on the patronizing and communal relationship types, but they are in a state of false consensus on the exchange relationship type. The states of dissensus and false conflict are absent in this study. Table 3 shows the results of the analysis.

Table 3.

Coorientation states on three relationship types.

Variable	Agreement between two sides	Agreement perceived by corporate donors	Agreement perceived by charitable organizations	State of coorientation
Patronizing relationship	Yes	Yes	Yes	Consensus
Exchange relationship	No	Yes	Yes	False consensus
Communal relationship	Yes	Yes	Yes	Consensus

Discussion and Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to better understand corporate philanthropy and relationships between corporate donors and charitable organizations. Utilizing the coorientation model to measure the two sides of the corporate donor–charitable organization relationship, the study investigated the extent to which both groups agree or disagree on three relationship types drawn from the literature: patronizing, exchange, and communal.

Of the three types of relationships, both corporate donors and charitable organizations view the relationship with each other as more communal than either one-way patronizing or two-way exchange. Both groups consider the other a strategic partner in gaining mutual benefits. In short, this study provides quantitative evidence that of the three relationship types, the communal relationship best describes corporate donor–charitable organization relationships, according to both corporate giving officers and senior fundraisers.

Corporate donors and charitable organizations view their relationship as beyond a one-way patronizing type, represented by wealthy donors and poor recipients. This finding lends support to the qualitative research by Rumsey and White (2007), which found that, in general, the donor–recipient relationship has evolved from a traditional patronizing one to a more symmetrical type.

Another major finding of this study is that corporate donors and charitable organizations significantly differ on characterizing their relationship with each other as an exchange relationship. While senior fundraisers moderately agreed that their organizations have an exchange relationship with corporate donors, corporate giving officers rated that relationship as the least characteristic of their companies’ interactions with charitable organizations. In other words, corporate donors do not view their relationship with charitable organizations as based on an assumption of quid pro quo, whereas charitable organizations believe to some extent that corporate donors expect returned benefits from their contributions.

One possible explanation for this divergence on the exchange relationship type is that charitable organizations may not appreciate corporate donors’ reasons for and efforts to build strategic partnerships with them. They may even distort the intention of strategic philanthropy (i.e., corporate donors use contributions solely to increase profits). Findings of this study provide charitable organizations and their fundraisers with scientific insight on how they should realign their beliefs to work more effectively with corporate donors. An emphasis on returning benefits to corporate donors is inappropriate and incongruent with donors’ expectations. It also may lead to high costs for charitable organizations in administrating corporate gifts and even loss of organizational autonomy.

Findings based on the coorientation model show there are gaps in perceived agreement between corporate donors and charitable organizations, particularly on the exchange relationship type. An intriguing finding from the analysis is that the D-scores for corporate giving officers’ estimates of charitable organizations’ views on all three relationship types and senior fundraisers actual evaluations are higher than the D-scores for senior fundraisers’ estimates of corporate donors’ views and corporate giving officers’ actual evaluations. Interpreting these findings, corporate donors are more likely to perceive gaps between their own views and charitable organizations’ views than are charitable organizations. Illustrating, both sides negatively evaluate the patronizing relationship and both perceive agreement with the other side about this; however, corporate donors’ D-score is 0.48, whereas charitable organizations’ D-score is 0.06. The gap in D-scores regarding the exchange relationship is substantially wider. In spite of perceived agreement, the D-score for corporate donors is 1.2, whereas the D-score for charitable organizations is 0.34, which shows that corporate donors are more cognizant about possible differences in views of corporate philanthropy than are charitable organizations. Again, findings indicate that charitable organizations and their fundraisers should re-examine their views and perceptions about corporate donor motivations and strategic philanthropy initiatives to better align themselves with their corporate donor partners. Dialogue between the two parties is recommended.

Regarding states of coorientation on the type of relationship between corporate donors and charitable organizations, the two sides are in a state of consensus on the patronizing and communal relationship types. Both corporate donors and charitable organizations agree and perceive agreement with the other party that the patronizing relationship does not describe their relationship with each other and that of the three relationship types measured, the communal relationship best describes the relationship. In contrast, corporate donors and charitable organizations are in a state of dissensus on the exchange relationship type. Each group evaluates this relationship significantly different, with corporate donors disavowing the exchange relationship and charitable organizations attesting to its practice, yet both groups perceive agreement of their incongruent views with their philanthropic partners. As just discussed, charitable organizations that mistakenly think there is agreement between them and their corporate donors on the marketing nature of their relationship face dire consequences. For example, their fundraisers may introduce themselves to potential corporate donors as representatives of commercial partners who will bring bottom-line benefits to the company, which could detract from or even undermine the charitable organization’s mission. More importantly, a marketing-oriented approach to corporate philanthropy, such as the exchange relationship, violates—at least in spirit—regulations of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service on tax-exempt organizations (Kelly, 1998).

From a relationship management perspective, charitable organizations have been undervalued in strategic corporate philanthropy, even though they are a major stakeholder group for companies, particularly large corporations. As Porter and Kramer (2002) argued, it is crucial for corporations to choose appropriate charitable organizations and develop relationships with them in order to implement successful corporate giving. While most studies dealing with corporate giving have focused on such publics as consumers, community residents, and employees (Hall, 2006; Logsdon et al., 1990; Maignan & Ferrell, 2001), there has been a lack of research addressing companies’ relationships with charitable organizations. Findings from this study illuminate the relationship between corporate donors and charitable organizations. Furthermore, the study conceptualized and tested three theoretical types of relationships between corporate donors and charitable organizations, which adds to the bodies of knowledge of nonprofit management, philanthropy, and public relations.

Limitations and Research Suggestions

This study was limited by the small size of its sampling frames, as well as its low response rates. On the basis of Pareto’s principle that dictates that at least 80% of the dollars contributed to charitable organizations come from 20% of the donors, the study focused on leading U.S. corporate donors and charitable organizations rather than the much larger populations of all companies that make contributions and all charitable organizations that receive corporate contributions. The elite status of the sampling frames likely contributed to the study’s low response rates despite three waves of mailing. The heads of corporate giving of the country’s largest corporations and the heads of fundraising of its largest charitable organizations are not easily accessible participants for survey research. Also, the elite status of respondents and the study’s low response rates might have produced biased findings. Given the variety of for-profit and nonprofit organizations, findings of this study are unlikely to be generalizable to all but a small and exclusive cohort in the United States—primarily the populations from which the samples were drawn: Fortune 500 companies and the Philanthropy 400 charitable organizations. Although the value of this study’s findings should not be diminished, future studies on the corporate donor–charitable organization relationship should include more broad-based samples and extend beyond U.S. borders.

Related to concerns about sampling frames, this study measured relationship types with generic samples, rather than with individual organizations and their respective charitable organization or corporate donor publics. Survey respondents were asked to evaluate and estimate the other side’s perceptions of the three relationship types based on their interactions with any and all corporate donors and charitable organizations. While policies guiding corporate giving and acceptance of corporate contributions generally are applicable to all areas of corporate philanthropy, some for-profit and nonprofit charitable organizations may have unique policies that impact the type of relationship they practice. Future studies should focus on the corporate donor–charitable organization relationship of specific organizations Findings of such studies may differ from those reported here.

Another limitation of this study is the low reliability of some of the scales used to measure the three types of relationships between corporate donors and charitable organizations. Cronbach’s α for the relationship type scales ranged from a low of 0.20 to a high of 0.82. In particular, reliability of the communal relationship type, which utilized measurement items adapted from Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999), were very low. Future studies should develop more reliable scales to measure relationship types between corporate donors and charitable organizations. They also should explore relationship types beyond the three measured in this study.

Lastly, the study employed the survey method that documents observations of a phenomenon at one moment in time. Considering that relationships are more dynamic than stable, the study’s findings may be limited in their ability to describe the two sides’ views of the corporate donor–charitable organization relationship. Caution is recommended in interpreting and applying the findings. Future research should include longitudinal studies that collect observations over a period of time. Research replicating this study with the same or different populations would build cumulative knowledge. Likewise, studies employing different methodologies, such as focus groups, would advance understanding of the corporate donor–charitable organization relationship.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the survey participants and the anonymous reviewers who provided helpful comments and suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Moonhee Cho is an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Her current research focuses on public relations management of both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, strategic corporate philanthropy, donor empowerment, and strategic use of social media. She is a former fundraising practitioner and consultant in South Korea.

Kathleen S. Kelly is a professor at the University of Florida. An internationally recognized authority on public relations and fundraising, her research interests focus on organization–public relationships, particularly donor relations. Kelly has 17 years of professional experience as a fundraiser and public relations practitioner.

References

Austin

J. E.

(2000). The collaboration challenge: How nonprofits and businesses succeed through strategic alliances. San Francisco, SF: Jossey-Bass.

Austin

J. E.

Seitanidi

M. M.

(2012a). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses. Part 1: Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 726-758.

Austin

J. E.

Seitanidi

M. M.

(2012b). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses. Part 2: Partnership processes and outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 929-968.

Bortree

D. S.

(2010). Exploring adolescent-organization relationships: A study of effective relationship strategies with adolescent volunteers. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22, 1-25.

Broom

G. M.

(2009). Cutlip & Center’s effective public relations (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Broom

G. M.

Dozier

D. M.

(1990). Using research in public relations: Applications to program management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bruning

S. D.

Ledingham

J. A.

(1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization–public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25, 157-170.

Bruning

S. D.

Castle

J. D.

Schrepfer

(2004). Building relationships between organizations and publics: Examining the linkage between organization–public relationships, evaluations of satisfaction, and behavioral intent. Communication Studies, 5, 435-446.

Buchholtz

A. K.

Amason

A. C.

Rutherford

M. A.

(1999). Beyond resources: The mediating effect of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. Business and Society, 38, 167-187.

10.

Bryson

J. M.

Crosby

B. C.

Stone

M. M.

(2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66, 44-55.

11.

Clark

M. S.

Mills

(1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684-691.

12.

Connelly

N. A.

Knuth

B. A.

(2002). Using the coorientation model to compare community leaders’ and local residents’ views about Hudson river ecosystem restoration. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 15, 933-948.

13.

Coombs

W. T.

Holladay

S. J.

(2007). It’s not just PR: Public relations in society. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

14.

Dozier

D. M.

Ehling

W. P.

(1992). Evaluation of public relations programs: What the literature tells us about their effects. In Grunig

J. E.

(Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 159-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

15.

Dunn

(2010). Strategic responses by a nonprofit when a donor becomes tainted. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 102-123.

16.

Ferguson

M. A.

(1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented to the Public Relations Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL.

17.

Foster

M. K.

Meinhard

A. G.

Berger

I., E.

Krpan

(2009). Corporate philanthropy in the Canadian Context: From damage control to improving society. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 441-466.

18.

Goodwin

(2004). Garnering major gifts. Custom Development Solutions, Inc., Mt. Pleasant, SC. Retrieved from http://www.cdsfunds.com/garnering_major_gifts.html

19.

Grunig

J. E.

(2000). Collectivism, collaboration, and societal corporatism as core professional values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12, 23-48.

20.

Grunig

J. E.

Huang

(2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In Ledingham

J. A.

Bruning

(Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to public relations (pp. 23-54). Mahwah, NJU: Erlbaum.

21.

Grunig

L. A.

Grunig

J. E.

Ehling

W. P.

(1992). What is an effective organization? In Grunig

J. E.

(Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 65-89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

22.

Hall

M. R.

(2006). Corporate philanthropy and corporate community relations: Measuring relationship-building results. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 1-21.

23.

Hon

L. C.

Grunig

J. E.

(1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations.

24.

Kelly

K.S.

(1998). Effective fund-raising management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

25.

Kelly

K. S.

Thompson

Waters

R. D.

(2006). Improving the way we die: A coorientation study assessing agreement/disagreement in the organization-public relationship of hospices and physicians. Journal of Health Communication, 11, 607-627.

26.

E.-J.

Hon

L. C.

(2007). Testing the linkages among the organization-public relationship and attitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 1-23.

27.

Kolk

van Tulder

Kostwinder

(2008). Business and partnerships for development. European Management Journal, 26, 262-273.

28.

Kopenhaver

L. L.

Martinson

D. L.

Ryan

(1984). How public relations practitioners and editors in Florida view each other. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 860-865.

29.

Koten

J. A.

(1997). The strategic uses of corporate philanthropy. In Caywood

C. L.

(Ed.), The handbook of strategic public relations and integrated communications, (pp. 149-172). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

30.

Ledingham

J. A.

(2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15, 181-198.

31.

Ledingham

J. A.

Bruning

S. D.

(1998). Community relations and relationship dimensions: Measuring the impact of a managed communication program. Paper presented at the First International Interdisciplinary Research Conference, College Park, MD.

32.

Ledingham

J. A.

Bruning

S. D.

(2000). A longitudinal study of organization-public relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication in the practice of relationship management. In Ledingham

J. A.

Bruning

S. D.

(Eds.). Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 55-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

33.

Levy

(1999). Give and take: A candid account of corporate philanthropy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

34.

Logsdon

J. M.

Reinter

Burke

(1990). Corporate philanthropy: Strategic responses to the firm’s stakeholders. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 19, 93-109.

35.

Maignan

Ferrell

O. C.

(2001). Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 457-484.

36.

Martin

M. W.

(1994). Virtuous giving: Philanthropy, voluntary service, and caring. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

37.

Marx

J. D.

(1999). Corporate philanthropy: What is the strategy? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 185-198.

38.

McLeod

J. M.

Chaffee

S. H.

(1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research. American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 469-499.

39.

Newcomb

T. M.

(1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393-404.

40.

Porter

M. E.

Kramer

M. R.

(2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56-68.

41.

Reber

B. H.

Cropp

Cameron

G. T.

(2001). Mythic battles: Examining the lawyer-public relations counselor dynamic. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 187-218.

42.

Rumsey

White

(2007, August). Strategic corporate philanthropic relationships: Nonprofits’ perceptions of benefits and corporate motives. Paper presented at the Public Relations Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication National Convention, Washington, DC.

43.

Sallot

L. M.

Steinfatt

T. M.

Salwen

M. B.

(1998). Journalists’ and public relations practitioners’ news values: Perceptions and cross-perceptions. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 366-377.

44.

Seifert

Morris

S. A.

Bartkus

B. R.

(2004). Having, giving, and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance. Business & Society, 43, 135-161.

45.

Seitanidi

M. M.

Ryan

(2007). A critical review of forms of corporate community involvement: From philanthropy to partnerships. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 247-266.

46.

Shin

Cameron

G. T.

(2005). Different sides of the same coin: Mixed views of public relations practitioners and journalists for strategic conflict management. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 318-338.

47.

Smith

(1994). The new corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 72(3), 105-114.

48.

Waters

R. D.

(2007). Advancing relationship management theory: Coorientation and the nonprofit-donor relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville.

49.

Waters

R. D.

(2011). Increasing fundraising efficiency through evaluation: Applying communication theory to the nonprofit-organization–donor relationship. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 458-475.