PAUL CAULFIELDLove not MoneySubstitution and complementary effects inthe dissemination of corporate communityinvestment pr...
LOVE NOT MONEYIn	  UK	  	  from	  2001	  to	  2011	  •  Range	  of	  corporate	  community	  investments	  	  •  Rela:ve	 ...
LOVE NOT MONEY•  How	  are	  decisions	  made	  about	  corporate	  community	  investment?	  •  What	  determines	  choic...
Where	  are	  decision	  &	  Who	  sets	  targets?	  How	  ac:vely	  to	  communicate	  &	  promote?	  How	  much	  to	  i...
Corporate	  	  Responsibility	  Principles	  (Mission	  Statement)	  Resources	  &	  Investment	  Rela:onship	  &	  Ac:vi:...
Corporate	  	  Responsibility	  Principles	  (Mission	  Statement)	  Resources	  &	  Investment	  Rela:onship	  &	  Ac:vi:...
“EMBEDDED”	  High	  strategic	  management	  High	  resource	  commitment	  “SUPERFICIAL”	  High	  strategic	  management	...
How	  are	  decisions	  made	  about	  corporate	  community	  investment?	  Money	  is	  easier!	  Whilst	  rela:onship	 ...
LOVE 0 MONEY 1•  How	  are	  decisions	  are	  made	  corporate	  community	  investment?	  •  What	  determines	  choice	...
-.50.511.52CountFT AllShare FTSE 250 FTSE 100Volunteer Factor 1-.50.511.52CountFT AllShare FTSE 250 FTSE 100Volunteer Fact...
Significant	  differences	  with	  FTSE100	  or	  FTSE250	  membership,	  p=0.003)	  For	  Dona:ons	  –	  History	  makers!	...
What	  determines	  choice	  between	  corporate	  community	  investments?	  Money	  is	  expected!	  CCI	  of	  financial...
LOVE 0 MONEY 2•  What	  decisions	  are	  made	  about	  corporate	  community	  investment?	  •  What	  determines	  choi...
Iden:fy	  prac:ces	  of	  leading	  firms	  BitC	  award	  winners:	  Pla:num,	  Gold,	  Silver	  e.g.	  	  BHP	  BILLITON	...
0%#10%#20%#30%#40%#50%#60%#70%#80%#90%#100%#0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%# 90%# 100%#%"who"have"dopted"financi...
Dissemina:on	  of	  prac:ces	  DON	  2009	  DON	  2005	  DON	  2001	  VOL	  2009	  VOL	  2005	  VOL	  2001	  Star:ng	  con...
Dissemina:on	  of	  prac:ces	  DON	  2009	  DON	  2005	  DON	  2001	  VOL	  2009	  VOL	  2005	  VOL	  2001	  Standardised	...
2001	  FACTORS	  2005	  FACTORS	  2009	  FACTORS	  Finance	  sector	  leads	  prac:ces	  DON	  2009	  DON	  2005	  DON	  2...
Employee	  limited	  influence	  on	  dona:ons	  DON	  2009	  DON	  2005	  DON	  2001	  VOL	  2009	  VOL	  2005	  VOL	  200...
Profit	  early	  influence	  on	  dona:ons	  DON	  2009	  DON	  2005	  DON	  2001	  VOL	  2009	  VOL	  2005	  VOL	  2001	  +...
Media	  visibility	  early	  influence	  on	  dona:ons	  DON	  2009	  DON	  2005	  DON	  2001	  VOL	  2009	  VOL	  2005	  V...
Membership	  of	  BitC	  is	  catalyst	  DON	  2009	  DON	  2005	  DON	  2001	  VOL	  2009	  VOL	  2005	  VOL	  2001	  BIT...
How	  do	  philanthropic	  prac:ces	  disseminate?	  Money	  spent	  first!	  Previous	  dona:on	  strongest	  predictor	  ...
LOVE 0 MONEY 3THANK	  YOU	  
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Love not Money. Paul Caulfield

768 views
722 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
768
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Love not Money. Paul Caulfield

  1. 1. PAUL CAULFIELDLove not MoneySubstitution and complementary effects inthe dissemination of corporate communityinvestment practices
  2. 2. LOVE NOT MONEYIn  UK    from  2001  to  2011  •  Range  of  corporate  community  investments    •  Rela:ve  level  of  CCI  allowing  for  “size”  •  Resources  deployed  –  Human  resource  (Employee  volunteering)  –  Financial  resource  (Corporate  Dona:ons)  
  3. 3. LOVE NOT MONEY•  How  are  decisions  made  about  corporate  community  investment?  •  What  determines  choice  between  corporate  community  investments  of  different  types?  •  How  do  philanthropic  prac:ces  disseminate?  
  4. 4. Where  are  decision  &  Who  sets  targets?  How  ac:vely  to  communicate  &  promote?  How  much  to  invest/allow?  What  type  of  rela:onship  &  who  with?    Strategic decisions about CCIFrom  interviews  and  focus  groups  (N=35)  What  is  our  strategic  intent?    (opaque)  
  5. 5. Corporate    Responsibility  Principles  (Mission  Statement)  Resources  &  Investment  Rela:onship  &  Ac:vi:es  Organisa:on  &  Administra:on  Communica:on  &  Promo:on  Administrate  •   Department/staffing  •   Data  collec:on  •   Policies/prac:ces  Resource/Invest  •   Manager  support    • Time-­‐off/  flexibility  •   Matched-­‐funding  /  Rewards  Manage  rela7ons  &  ac7vity  •   VSO  causes  supported  •   Placement  arrangements  •   Ac:vity  team/individual  Promote  (Internal/External)  • Recogni:on  •   Awareness/PR  •   Informa:on/Recruitment  Administrate  •   Department/staffing  • Policies/prac:ces  Resource/Invest  •   Manager  support  • Amount  donated  Manage  rela7ons  &  ac7vity  •   VSO  causes  supported  •   Themes  supported  Promote  (External)  • Awareness/PR  Employee  Volunteering   Corporate  Dona7ons  From  coding  of  FTSE  All  Share  Annual  Reports  2001-­‐2011  (N=333)  Higher  complexity  
  6. 6. Corporate    Responsibility  Principles  (Mission  Statement)  Resources  &  Investment  Rela:onship  &  Ac:vi:es  Organisa:on  &  Administra:on  Communica:on  &  Promo:on  14  item  coding  instrument  with  four  independent  coders  (V02)  The  company  shows  evidence  of  recording  data  on  volunteering  levels  through  targets  or  sta:s:cs  (McPhail&Bowles  2009)  Employee  Volunteering   Corporate  Dona7ons  Strategic  Management  of  CCI  Resource  Commitment    to  CCI  Two  factors  under  PCA  with  cronbach  alpha  >0.69  
  7. 7. “EMBEDDED”  High  strategic  management  High  resource  commitment  “SUPERFICIAL”  High  strategic  management  Low  resource  commitment  (possibly  reputa:on  led)  “REACTIVE”  Low  strategic  management  High  resource  commitment  (possibly  employee  led)  “UNSUPPORTIVE”  Low  strategic  management  Low  resource  commitment  Strategic  management  of  CCI  Resource  commitment  to  CCI   How  are  decisions  made  about  volunteering?  Over  65%  of  firms    Employee  led  Smaller    &  regional  firms  (under  reported?)  “2  days  a  year  to  volunteer”  Senior  management  backing  Larger  firms  Extensive  communica:ons  “Bob  ran  the  half-­‐marathon”  PR  styled  “nice”  news  “Nice  to  our  neighbours”  Mission  statement  only  
  8. 8. How  are  decisions  made  about  corporate  community  investment?  Money  is  easier!  Whilst  rela:onship  and  communica:ons  prac:ces  are  similar  across  both  volunteering  and  dona:ons…  …level  of  organisa:onal  commitment  and  resource  investment  are  dis:nct    LOVE 0 MONEY 1
  9. 9. LOVE 0 MONEY 1•  How  are  decisions  are  made  corporate  community  investment?  •  What  determines  choice  between  corporate  community  investments  of  different  types?  •  How  do  philanthropic  prac:ces  disseminate?  
  10. 10. -.50.511.52CountFT AllShare FTSE 250 FTSE 100Volunteer Factor 1-.50.511.52CountFT AllShare FTSE 250 FTSE 100Volunteer Factor 2Significant  differences  with  FTSE100  or  FTSE250  membership,  p=0.003)  Resource  commitment  For  Volunteering  –  “Size”  makers!  
  11. 11. Significant  differences  with  FTSE100  or  FTSE250  membership,  p=0.003)  For  Dona:ons  –  History  makers!  •  Decisions  to  donate  a  highly  stable  over  :me  •  Using  models  from  medicine  to  study  “Non-­‐donors”  suggests  pakern  is  zero  inflated  poisson  (e.g.  models  for  addicts)  
  12. 12. What  determines  choice  between  corporate  community  investments?  Money  is  expected!  CCI  of  financial  resources  (dona:ons)  highly  ins:tu:onalised  …    …investment  choice  of  human  resources  (volunteering)  more  associated  with  internal  factors  (e.g  size,  industry,  peer  group)  LOVE 0 MONEY 2
  13. 13. LOVE 0 MONEY 2•  What  decisions  are  made  about  corporate  community  investment?  •  What  determines  choice  between  corporate  community  investments  of  different  types?  •  How  do  philanthropic  prac:ces  disseminate?  
  14. 14. Iden:fy  prac:ces  of  leading  firms  BitC  award  winners:  Pla:num,  Gold,  Silver  e.g.    BHP  BILLITON  PLC  BRITISH  AMERICAN  TOBACCO  P.L.C.  BRITISH  SKY  BROADCASTING  GROUP  PLC  CENTRICA  PLC  IMPERIAL  TOBACCO  GROUP  PLC  MARKS  AND  SPENCER  GROUP  P.L.C.  NATIONAL  GRID  PLC  NORTHUMBRIAN  WATER  GROUP  PLC  PREMIER  FARNELL  PLC  SCOTTISH  AND  SOUTHERN  ENERGY  PLC  UNILEVER  PLC  …  DON  Benchmark  Level  of  dona:on  per  head  VOL  Benchmark    Level  of  policy  commitment  
  15. 15. 0%#10%#20%#30%#40%#50%#60%#70%#80%#90%#100%#0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%# 60%# 70%# 80%# 90%# 100%#%"who"have"dopted"financial"dona1on"benchmark"in"field"%"who"have"dopted"employee"volunteering"benchmark"in"field"Extrac3ve_2001#Extrac3ve_2005#Extrac3ve_2009#Finance_2001#Finance_2005#Finance_2009#Manufacture_2001#Manufacture_2005#Manufacture_2009#Retail_2001#Retail_2005#Retail_2009#Service_2001#Service_2005#Service_2009#Wholesale_2001#Wholesale_2005#Wholesale_2009#FINANCE***  Complementary  Early  adopters  WHOLESALE  &  RETAIL  Subs:tu:onal  Late  adopters  EXTRACTIVE  ??  SERVICE  &  MANUFACTURE  Complementary  Lower  adop:on  Level  of  adop7on  volunteering  prac7ces  -­‐>  Level  of  adop7on  dona7on  prac7ces-­‐>  
  16. 16. Dissemina:on  of  prac:ces  DON  2009  DON  2005  DON  2001  VOL  2009  VOL  2005  VOL  2001  Star:ng  condi:ons  2001    FACTORS  2005  FACTORS  2009    FACTORS  Organisa:onal  (and  Internal)  Ins:tu:onal  (and  External)  
  17. 17. Dissemina:on  of  prac:ces  DON  2009  DON  2005  DON  2001  VOL  2009  VOL  2005  VOL  2001  Standardised  coeffs,  only  significant  paths  p<0.20  shown  +IVE***  +IVE***  CCI  BALANCED  BIN  RUN  6.0.0  Chi  0.678*,  df=3,  p=.8783  RMSEA=0.000                      CI  90%    0.000    0.0550                    Prob.  RMSEA  <=  .05      0.941  CFI    1.000  Dona:ons  prac:ces  Volunteering  prac:ces  +IVE***  +IVE***  +IVE**  NS  NS  Autoregressive  Conclusions  •  Dona:ons  highly  dependent  on  past  (R2  =0.73)  •  Volunteering  less  so  (R2=0.39)  •  Dona:ons  ini:ally  lead  volunteering  prac:ces  •  Once  volunteering  established  its  evolu:on  is  somewhat  independent  with  only  weak  correla:on  between  ac:vi:es  •  Volunteering  does  not  influence  on  dona:ons  
  18. 18. 2001  FACTORS  2005  FACTORS  2009  FACTORS  Finance  sector  leads  prac:ces  DON  2009  DON  2005  DON  2001  VOL  2009  VOL  2005  VOL  2001  Standardised  coeffs,  only  significant  paths  p<0.20  shown  FINANCE  LONDON  HQ  +IVE*  Organisa:onal  Constants    WHOLESALE  SERVICE  +IVE  #  +IVE***  -­‐-­‐IVE  (NS)  +IVE  (NS)  Financial  sector  leads  CCI  strategies  in  UK  Other  star:ng  condi:ons  age,  ownership,  exposure  to  overseas  markets  fail  to  be  significant  <0.20.  Other  industries  fail  to  be  significant  as  star:ng  condi:on.  
  19. 19. Employee  limited  influence  on  dona:ons  DON  2009  DON  2005  DON  2001  VOL  2009  VOL  2005  VOL  2001  EMPLOYEES’01  EMPLOYEES’05  EMPLOYEES’09  -­‐IVE  #  Note)  Employees  correlated  with  Coercive  Visibility  ***  Organisa:onal  Variables  -­‐IVE  #  Dona:ons  per  head    ini:ally  grows  then  appears  capped  with  size  
  20. 20. Profit  early  influence  on  dona:ons  DON  2009  DON  2005  DON  2001  VOL  2009  VOL  2005  VOL  2001  +IVE***  PROFIT  ‘01  PROFIT  ‘05  PROFIT  ‘09  +IVE*  Note)  Employees  correlated  with  Coercive  Visibility  ***  Organisa:onal  Variables  Profit  is  ini:ally  important  for  dona:ons  but  reduces  in  significance  
  21. 21. Media  visibility  early  influence  on  dona:ons  DON  2009  DON  2005  DON  2001  VOL  2009  VOL  2005  VOL  2001  VISIBILITY’01  VISIBILITY’05  VISIBILITY’09  +IVE*  Note)  Employees  correlated  with  Coercive  Visibility  ***  Coercive  factors  appear  to  have  an  ini:al  effect  in  2001  on  dona:ons,  but  have  not  been  seen  to  influence  adop:on  standards  since  then.  Volunteering  appears  to  be  ‘immune’  to  coercive  influence  Coercive  Variables      +IVE  (NS)  Media  visibility  has  been  significant  influence  on  dona:ons  but  has  no  influence  on  volunteering  
  22. 22. Membership  of  BitC  is  catalyst  DON  2009  DON  2005  DON  2001  VOL  2009  VOL  2005  VOL  2001  BITC  ’01  BITC’05  BITC’09  +0.246**  Note)  BITC  membership  in  2001  is  posi:vely  correlated  with  both  Employees    &  Coercive  Visibility  ***  Norma:ve  effects  appear  to  have  only  weak  effects  and  affect  volunteering  to  a  limited  to  early  development  of  the  field.  Norma:ve  Variables  +0.263**  
  23. 23. How  do  philanthropic  prac:ces  disseminate?  Money  spent  first!  Previous  dona:on  strongest  predictor  of  all  future  prac:ces    Finance  sector  as  role  model    BitC  as  influencer    LOVE 0 MONEY 3
  24. 24. LOVE 0 MONEY 3THANK  YOU  

×