MertensCultureandtheBusinessofGivingandVolunteering

1
Culture and the Business of
Giving and Volunteering at the
National and International
Levels
Meaghan Mertens
May 7, 2012
Independent Study
Dr. Rottman

2
Culture and the Business of Giving and Volunteering at the National and
International Levels
I. Culture and Society
The term “culture” has a variety of definitions and meanings with some of the greatest
minds in the sciences failing to generate a consensus of the term for research purposes. For more
than a century people have been trying to develop a working definition that everyone can agree
on. But the subtle differences in the definition can be based on the origin of the discipline, which
could include the study of anthropology, paleontology, sociology, archeology, biology and/or
genetics. As Chase pointed out in his book, The Emergence of Culture, many critics say the
concept of “culture” is vague while others insist that “culture” as a concept does not exist
(Chase, 2006). When discussing the conceptualization of culture, Martin Gannon pointed out that
since there is such a wide variation in definitions, the term “culture” can be used in a meaningful
way (Gannon, 2008).
Back in 1952, two renowned anthropologists, Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn
attempted to create a uniform and universal definition of the term “culture” so that it could be
used in a meaningful way. According to Gannon, the team studied and researched over 100
definitions of “culture”. They built their definition on the premise that “culture” consists of
patterns of behavior acquired through symbols, traditions, values and artifacts (Gannon, 2008).
Geertz and Hofstede view “culture” as mental programming, while anthropologists Edward and
Mildred Hall feel that “culture” is communication within and across cultures (Geertz, 1973,
Hofstede, 2005).

3
In its basic term, culture is defined as the “values, beliefs, behavior and material objects
that together from a people’s way of life” (Macionis, 2007). To view culture as a whole Macionis
identifies two main components that are comprised from thoughts and things or non-material and
material. In his book, Communication and the Globalization of Culture, Shaheed Nick
Mohammed agrees with Macionis and states that “definitions of culture now tend to be couched
in terms of the totality of human existence, both material and conceptual” (Mohammed, 2011).
Non-material culture is made up of numerous abstract human creations such as language,
symbols, politics, religion, values, norms, family patterns, and beliefs that are passed from one
generation to another. Material culture is things that you can touch, physical objects like art,
clothes, books, cars and other artifacts.
Macionis described society as the people who interact in a defined geographical location
and share a culture. Based upon sociological constructs there are four main non-material
elements in culture that include symbols, language, values and norms. The bases for all cultures
are their symbols. According to Macionis, as humans we try to give meaning to our lives through
symbols. Symbols can include a gesture, words, facial expression, graffiti, flashing light, etc.
With the advent of technology and increased use of electronic devices, the current culture has
almost become immune to the constant change of and importance we place on symbols.
Language is made up of symbols that are necessary for people to use to communicate with each
other. Macionis feels that language and its symbols are the key to the world of culture.
Language, whether oral or written, is imperative to cultural transmission from one generation to
the next, as well as, cultural globalization (Macionis, 2007). The third element of culture is
values, which are the guidelines that people of a cultural group use to make decisions on how to
live life. These broad principles that support our beliefs, impact how we view our surroundings

4
and help define the person we become. The values and beliefs that become so important to us are
learned from families, friends, schools and religious organizations (Macionis, 2007). Norms are
considered to be the fourth element that makes up culture. The concept of norms is thought to be
central to theories of social order. Norms are defined as “expectations about appropriate conduct
which serve as common guidelines for social actions” (Abercrombie et al., 2000). Because of
norms we are expected to follow certain laws or display good manners in social situations, yet
when norms are broken in society it can result in negative sanctions.
II. Globalization of Charity and Business
Within the United States, in addition to countries all around the world, cultural beliefs
and values are not static, and as we progress through this more global age it is important to
recognize and study how best to build connections across the world. The concept of globalization
is a current hot trend in our society today. Many scholars argue as to when globalization began,
what its definition is and what impact it will have on creating world history. The advancements
in communication, technology, business and mobility have significantly impacted globalization.
Because of the increased interest and research on globalization many terms are becoming part of
our dialogue, such as cultural diversity, culture shock, multi-culturism, cultural transfusion,
cultural relativism, cultural transmission, etc. Some view cultural globalization as a trend
towards homogeneity where the population of the world would turn into a single world culture.
With the easy access of wireless communications, electronic commerce and international travel,
the concept of a single world culture may be a possibility, but will probably never be a reality.

5
Cultural globalization can be intertwined with numerous other aspects of our world
including business, economy, politics, technology, military and religion. In his book
International Business, Andrew L. Harrison defined globalization as:
the increasing interdependence of the world’s economies and business activity. Events
in one country increasingly have ‘global’ implications, and ‘global’ firms sell their
products in ‘global’ product markets and acquire their resources in ‘global’ resource
markets (Harrison, 2000).
Harrison prefaced in his book that almost everyone has been impacted by the
internationalism or globalization of business in multinational enterprises, institutions and
organizations. To be successful when functioning in the business world across cultures it is
imperative to understand, appreciate and respect the values, beliefs and traditions of the host
country. Confrontations and problems need to be resolved between people, organizations and
nations, and knowing how to interact and communicate effectively across cultures is imperative
(Harrison, 2000).
When children are born in a region or country their parents have already made many
culturally based decisions about their life. As children grow, what they have engrained in them;
patterns of human behaviors, shared beliefs, traditions and values are what Hofstede describes as
mental programming. Hofstede feels that early childhood is the most critical time where mental
programming occurs because a person is most susceptible to learning and assimilating. “The
sources of one’s mental programs lie within the social environments in which one grew up and
collected one’s life experiences. The programming starts within the family; it continues within

6
the neighborhood, at school, at youth groups, at the workplace, and in the living community”
(Hofstede, 2005).
According to Hofstede, there are three levels of uniqueness in mental programming
which include personality, culture and human nature. As Hofstede has pointed out, culture is
made of many pieces to make a whole. Culture can influence who a person turns out to be and
the individual they become (Hofstede 2005). Generally, this allows people to develop their own
ideal of what culture is.
Source: Hofstede, Geert and Hofstede, Gert Jan, Cultures and Organizations Software of the Mind
In 1966, Hofstede began a research project that explored the differences in thinking
and social actions of IBM employees. IBM, a multi-national company, has workers all over
the world in over 50 modern nations. Based on the data received from over 117,000
PERSONALITY
CULTURE
HUMAN NATURE
Specific
to
Individual
Inherited
and
learned
Specific `to
group
or category
Learned
Inherited
Universal
Three Levels of Uniqueness in Human Mental Programming

7
respondents using paper/pencil surveys, Hofstede developed a cultural dimensions
classification model (Hofstede, 1984). Hofstede’s model identified five basic cultural
dimensions that include Power Distance (PDI), Individualism (IDV), Uncertainty Avoidance
(UAI), Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS), with the most current dimension labeled Long-
Term versus Short-Term Orientation (LTO). This model has been embraced by the
international community as an aid in making management decisions.
Source: http://geert-hofstede.com/united-kingdom.html

8
Source: http://geert-hofstede.com/united-states.html
The Power Distance Index (PDI) is Geert Hofstede’s first cultural dimension in which it
shows to what degree individuals are treated equally within their society. “The fundamental issue
here is how a society handles inequalities among people” (Hofstede, 2005). When a country has
a low PDI they are a society more interested and open for equality as well as opportunity among
everyone. Members of a low PDI society strive for power to be equally distributed and demand
that there is justification when inequalities exist. Members among a society “exhibiting a large
degree of power distance accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which
needs no further justification.” The higher the PDI goes the less equality one has within their
culture. With a higher PDI members of the society in less powerful positions accept that the
power is not equally distributed. In the two graph examples above it shows a comparison of the
United Kingdom, France, Germany and the United States. It is interesting to see how the United
States culture compares to that of three major European countries. For the PDI of these four

9
countries it shows that the United Kingdom and Germany value equality among its society more
than the United States and France. One could assume based on the values stated in the US
constitution that they would value more equality.
Individualism is another factor that Hofstede analyzes in the five cultural dimensions.
Individualism’s main focus “is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its
members” (Hofstede, 2005). The words ‘I’ or ‘We’ is what defines how a society is based; for
more individualist countries ‘I’ is used to define the self image of the people in their society.
Those higher on the individualist scale tend to look after themselves and immediate family
members. For those whose society is defined with a ‘We’ self image are collectivists which tend
to focus on groups. Collectivism amongst societies is developed through loyalty and exchange by
those around them. The United States and the United Kingdom have a tendency to be very
individualistic societies. Germany and France are still very individualistic just not to the degree
of the United States and the United Kingdom. They value a minimal of collectivism.
Masculinity versus Femininity is the third dimension Hofstede believes influences
culture. Masculinity is when a society shows a preference on aspects such as “achievement,
heroism assertiveness and material reward for success (Hofstede, 2005).” This means that society
as a whole would tend to be more competitive, whereas Femininity is more consensus oriented.
Femininity is the opposite of Masculinity focusing on modesty, cooperation, caring for the weak
and the quality of life one receives (Hofstede, 2005). Germany, the United Kingdom and the
United States are more masculine societies. These societies are very success driven. Whereas
France is a more feminine society which means they really focuses on the quality of life and
happiness of those in their society.

10
Uncertainty is a major part of life. One never really knows what the future holds and it
can be scarier for some more than others. With Hofstede’s Uncertainty Avoidance dimension it
“expresses the degree to which the members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and
ambiguity. The fundamental issue here is how a society deals with the fact that the future can
never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen” (Hofstede, 2005)?
France has one of the highest Uncertainty Avoidance amongst countries. They train extensively
and try to make sure certain things will go as planned. Germany is not far behind France and
feels very uncomfortable with ambiguity. The United States and the United Kingdom are similar
to each other and fall within the low uncertainty avoidance. They are okay if things do not go as
planned and are able to adjust easily to situations that may arise.
Long-Term Orientation is said to be related to Confucius’s teachings of society’s search
for virtue, “the extent to which a society shows a pragmatic future-oriented perspective rather
than a conventional historical short-term point of view” (Hofstede, 2005). Long-Term
Orientation tends to be less interested in long held traditions and instead of seeking absolute
truth, seek truth depending on the situation, time or context. All countries discussed so far are
considered short-term oriented and focus greatly on tradition and norms. They have an immense
respect for history and in addition to this many businesses will focus on short term goals.
Businesses in these societies want immediate results and will make adjustments where needed to
make these short terms possible.
III. The Culture of Charity and Volunteering
Charity has a long history that dates back to before the 1600’s. Up until 1601, charity was
known as a religious duty but developed into a social and political duty. During Elizabethan
England guidelines were set up to help determine what is allowable and valid purposes of

11
charity; this is known as the preamble to the Statute of Charitable Uses 1601. In 1891 there was a
trial that ended in charities being divided into four categories: relief of poverty, advancement of
education, advancement of religion, as well as other purposes that would be deemed beneficial to
communities that would not fall under the previous categories (Cheng et al., 2010). Over time
charity has begun to develop multiple definitions. Two examples of countries that have
expansive definitions of what charity is would be the U.K. and the U.S. The U.S. currently has
over thirty listed not-for-profit activities which help establish which organizations can receive
charitable status and tax exemption. For the U.K., organizations that are associated as charities
would include the following:
the advancement of health, community development, amateur sport, human rights and
equality, environmental protection, relief of various disabilities, animal welfare,
promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces and the advancement of the arts, culture,
heritage and science (Cheng et al., 2010).
Due to the ever expanding and broadening definition of charity it is important for
consumers to research what is actually considered a charity within their country. Over 2000 U.K.
citizens were surveyed and only 19% of them were able to appropriately identify the difference
between government bodies and those that are actually charities (Cheng et al., 2010). For many
people, the understanding of what charity means derives from religion or altruism. To them
charity is from the heart, an innate emotional, compassionate reaction that does not initially
require rational thought. Society has drastically changed over the years; therefore, the traditional
view that charity is from the heart and is giving to the poor is no longer sufficient. Society is now
composed of many substructures that require charities to do more than just feed the poor; it
requires them to change environments such as family, labor community, government and civic

12
groups. All of the substructures are interdependent and in order to make an effective change all
issues must be addressed (Cheng et al., 2010).
Due to the ever increasing magnitude of issues around the world, Good Samaritans are
constantly trying to catch up to the ever increasing demand. This in turn makes it difficult for
people to figure out how to deliver help that is needed. “The progression of thinking an approach
in charity work led to one conclusion: Being kind does not mean just showing kindness” (Cheng
et al., 2010). In essence, the previous statement is saying it is okay for someone to choose an
alternate route for giving to people other than money. This way of thinking has created a new
way of understanding charity, it is no longer considered a form of faith, and instead it adds
elements of strategy (Cheng et al., 2010). By adding strategic elements to the way people view
charity it allows more people to focus on the source of the problem instead of just the symptoms
of the problem. It is far too easy for people to hand out money to address the symptoms at hand
but they have a hard time delving in the actual cause. Social entrepreneurship is emerging to help
locate and fix the source of the problem instead of just the symptom. Over time we may see more
people giving to these charities over others.
Charities were developed and exist today to help the poor and those in need. The problem
that lies with charities is that there are a limited number of well-run charities. According to the
book The World that Changes the World, “the key reason is that the same compassion that drove
the formation of charities and their work can result in poor governance, low performance, poorly
paid workers, and a narrow focus on the needs of the poor that leads to suboptimal outcomes”
(Cheng et al., 2010). The book also states the importance that the only way to approach the
problem amongst charities is to remove compassion where it is not needed; by doing so it will
create high performing charities that are able to stay within their mission (Cheng et al., 2010).

13
Many scandals have ensued over the years involving charities and the not for profit
sector. These scandalous acts include everything from “outright theft by charity workers,
extravagant spending by its leaders, or questionable political involvement beyond their cause –
gets the press and the public hot under the collar” (Cheng et al., 2010). These acts have caused
major reforms amongst charity law and have created several watch dog groups including the
likes of Charity Navigator, Charity Watch and GuideStar. Watch dog groups help consumers
choose the right organization to donate their money to based on statistical data they have
accumulated. Information such as how much money is allocated towards the actual cause,
administration expenses as well as other allocations. Charity Navigator, which rates charities
based around the world, gives up to a 4-Star rating based on the transparency and accountability
as well as where the money is going to. Figure 1 and 2 portray the data collected by Charity
Navigator for Make-A-Wish International. Make-A-Wish is a brilliant nonprofit organization
that has 4-Star ratings in countries such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland,
Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. The countries previously listed are
all based within the European Union and Make-A-Wish International made every EU country
that it is located in the top 10 lists. Out of all the EU countries this was the only organization that
was repeatedly seen on multiple lists (Charity Navigator 2012).
Figure 1 shows how the money is divided within the company. As one can see over three
fourths of the company’s revenue goes towards Program expenses meaning that all of that money
goes towards those granted a Wish. The remaining one fourth is divided between fundraising
expenses and administrative expenses. Below in Figure 2 it shows the transparency of Make-A-
Wish, it is rated 4 Stars and obtained a 70 out of 70 for its accountability and transparency.

14
Figure 1
Source: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8548
Figure 2
Source: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8548
Due to charity watch groups only taking into effect financial ratios it has created a
skewed view on how a charity should actually perform. Consulting companies such as The
Bridgespan Group and The New Philanthropy Capital have taken a different approach and
compile information based on financial and nonfinancial factors. In Figure 3 below, it portrays

15
the differences seen between commercial companies and charities which helps paint a picture as
to why one should take more into consideration than just the financial aspect of a not for profit
organization. Commercial companies are much more successful than charities because they are
results-driven and in addition they tend to be driven by self-interest. Due to charities being for
social good and almost solely mission-driven, it can sometimes be very challenging to succeed.
Jim Collins, who has a strong understanding of business and nonprofit sectors, believes that the
basic principles of business practices still should be applied yet there are some differences that
need to be taken into account when dealing with the social sector. Nonprofits hold unique issues
that include “resource constraints, talent dearth, and lack of prestige, but great charities are those
that have the discipline to lead even through a diffused power structure or to think of an
alternative economic engine in the absence of the profit motive” (Cheng et al., 2010).
Figure 3
Commercial Charity
Mission Focus Economic Social
Market Basis Economic value
Survival of the fittest
Generosity
Doing Good
Funding Market rate capital Donations and Grants
Workers Staff at market-based
compensation
Volunteers and staff
paid below market rate
Recipients of Goods
and Services
Customers pay market
rate
Beneficiaries pay
nothing or subsidized
rate
Suppliers Charge market rate Charge subsidized rate
and give donations-in-
kind
Source: Willie Cheng, Doing Good Well: What does (and does not) make sense in the nonprofit world (Singapore:
John Wiley & Sons, 2009).

16
Based off the chart above it is apparent that workers employed by charities are underpaid,
there is weak governance, the pace of work being completed falls short of that in the commercial
market, and the focus on the needs of the poor is narrow and reduces greater outcomes. Due to
the wage disparity, many charities are being overlooked by talented individuals because they
believe their time is more valuable than what is being offered. Many not-for-profit organizations
are governed by volunteer boards, many of them want to do and are compassionate for the cause
that they are on the board for but few follow through with governing the organization. “Most
board members realize and accept that governance is part of their job scope. But then, the sector
is about compassion, trust, and goodness. So, they reflect these values in their approach to
governance” (Cheng et al. 2010). Not-for-profit organizations have a tough time juggling the
capacity of work that needs to be completed because they typically have very few full time staff.
Many tasks are taken care of by volunteers, which, in some cases can be a different person every
week, month or year. Volunteers take a lot of training and the unpredictability of when they will
show up to give their services can be daunting for nonprofit employees.
Volunteers are a highly important aspect of not-for-profit organizations. These volunteers
are like employees to not-for-profits and it is important for organizations to be appealing in ways
similar to other companies. People that volunteer need to know they are making a difference for
the organization. A volunteer will continue donating his/her time to the organization as long as
he/she receives motivation and a feeling of value. In order for recruiters to persuade volunteers
they must have an understanding on what motivates them. For instance, young adults and
teenagers would be more motivated by social media which allows them to improve their work
skills. Rochester suggests that motivation might be easier to understand if other triggers are taken
into account (Rochester et al., 2010). According to the book Volunteering and Society in the 21st

17
Century, there are six principles that help us understand why volunteers choose to donate their
time. The six principles include: volunteering is inclusive, volunteering is an act of free will or
choice, volunteering is a two-way process, volunteers make distinctive contribution, volunteering
empowers and volunteers make an impact. “These ‘basic principles’ which underpin
volunteering not only provide us with some further evidence of the heterogeneity of volunteer
action but also gives us basic framework for defining what it is that its various manifestations
have in common” (Rochester et al., 2010). In addition to the basic principles of volunteering
there are also four different categories for volunteering. Those categories include: formal vs.
informal volunteering, free choice vs. coercion, for love or money, and Cui bono meaning to
whose benefit.
Due to the complexities in defining volunteering one must also consider the typologies of
volunteering which happens to be a global perspective. The four types of volunteer typology are
mutual aid or self-help, philanthropy and service to others, participation, and advocacy or
campaigning. “These four distinctive types of volunteer activity [are] categorized according to
their final outcome or final purpose each of which occurs in all parts of the world” (Rochester et
al., 2010). Even though these activities occur all over the world it can differ greatly based on the
form and balance between the categories from one country to the next.
Not only is volunteering important to organizations it is also important to communities.
Base on the research conducted by the Institute for Volunteering Research, 126 countries have
started volunteering committees which were set up to bring attention to the work that volunteers
accomplish. The committees also aimed to improve the profile of volunteering by promoting,
recognition, facilitation and networking (Rochester et al., 2010).

18
IV. Comparative Research on Giving Between the Americans or Europeans
The questions always seems to be asked, “Who gives more, Americans or Europeans?”
In ideological terms; however it appears to be a widening divide between the two areas of the
world as Peter Baldwin discussed in his book The Narcissism of Minor Differences: How
Americans and Europeans are Alike. Baldwin noted that on American shores, “capitalistic
markets untempered by proper social policies allow unbridled competition, poverty, pollution,
violence, class divides and social anomie (Baldwin, 2006).” On the other side of the ocean,
Baldwin points out that the Europeans tend to have a more nurturing social approach, a regulated
labor market with more intensive welfare networks. The concept that there are significant
differences between Americans and Europeans has a long history and in his book, Peter Baldwin
described the people of these two areas as “hissing cousins.” Baldwin goes on to say that what
separates the Americans from Europeans is how they view the world and their social practices.
He noted that 91% of Americans desire a closer relationship with Europeans; however,
Europeans are not that excited to do so. Not surprisingly, only 39% of the French felt they
wanted a stronger tie with American citizens along with only 51% of the British (Baldwin,
2006).
The two societies are thought to differ radically. Americans are more apt to believe in
God and participate in more religious activities, while the Europeans tend to be more secular.
The differences between the two sides of the Atlantic Ocean are exhibited in the manner of
“competition versus cooperation, individualism versus solidarity, autonomy versus cohesion”
(Baldwin, 2006).

19
Americans are often accused of not being charitable and rather stingy in nature. In an
article written by Arthur C. Brooks for the Philanthropy Magazine, he reviewed various research
data to determine if American generosity is a fact or myth. Brooks pointed out that Europeans
often feel that Americans are an “ungenerous nation because our government foreign aid budget
is lower than that of many other developed countries as a proportion of the American economy”
(Brooks, 2006). In fact, the former United States President, Jimmy Carter in a speech he gave in
2004, described Americans as uncaring and indifferent to the suffering and needs of
impoverished people around the world. In his article, “Are Americans Generous?” Arthur Brooks
shared some research from the Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project at Johns Hopkins
University. The project reviewed international data collected between 1995 and 2002. The
researchers felt that the data collected demonstrated that American giving fell short when
compared to many Western European nations including France and Great Britain. The study
even included volunteer time to money gifts, but excluded religious gifts and yet the results still
seemed surprising.
Brooks felt the results of the Johns Hopkins study were misleading and omitted important
data for consideration. First, Brooks indicated that the researchers ignored the enormous private
gifts that Americans make during catastrophic disasters, such as tsunamis, hurricanes and
earthquakes. Brooks noted that information from the US Agency of International Development
indicated that official contributions from the US were about $10 billion or roughly 0.1 percent of
the GDP. When taking into account aid from private sources, such as foundations, religious
organizations, universities, corporations; the individual rate of giving increases to 0.5 percent of
GDP. Brooks reports that the rate of giving for charity in Western European countries is
nowhere near that of the Americans. “Per capita, Americans give three and a half times as much

20
as the French [and] seven times as much as the Germans...”(Brooks, 2006). Brooks went on to
compare volunteering rates between countries. He reviewed data from 1998 that was included in
the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). Brooks found that Americans volunteer for
religious, political and charitable causes at a much higher rate than most Europeans. Income and
level of education did not seem to influence the results with American volunteer rates 15%
higher when compared to the Dutch, 21% higher when compared to the Swiss and 32% higher
when compared to Germans (Brooks, 2006).
In his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, Peter Baldwin also completed research
comparatively similar to Arthur C. Brooks. Baldwin found that American’s charitable giving is
much greater than any other European country. He reported that Americans “give twice as much
as their nearest competitor the British, over seven times as much as the Germans and almost a
dozen times more than the French (Baldwin, 2006).” However, Baldwin felt that rates of giving
in America versus European countries maybe somewhat elevated due to the incentives of the US
tax code.
Based on research data in the chart below, Baldwin illustrated the difference between
volunteering between the United States in comparison to the Europeans. The data that Baldwin
presented indicated that the United States was second in volunteering when compared to nine
other countries. It was noted that Sweden had over 50% of their adult population volunteering,
with just under 50% of the United States volunteering.
164. Charity

21
Brooks and Baldwin both make the point and conclusion that Americans are more
charitable and giving. Their conclusion was that the Americans tend to be much more religious,
while the Europeans are more secular. The World Values Survey is a global research project that
analyzes people’s values and beliefs from around the world. The empirical data analyzed was
from a survey completed in 2006 collected from people in over 57 countries. For the purposes of
this paper, only data from the areas of religion, charitable organizations and family were
reviewed. To illustrate the findings in a graph format, the countries analyzed were limited to the
United States, Great Britain, France and Germany.

22
In the area of religion, the WVS results revealed that Americans feel religion is a very
important part of their life at the rate of two to three times more than that of the other European
countries measured. Similar results were noted in the areas of active church membership and
regular attendance to religious services. Americans are two to three times more likely to be an
active church member and to attend services once a week. The British came in first and showed a
slight edge when determining the level of active participation in a charitable/humanitarian
organization, with the Americans coming in at a close second. The French and Germans
exhibited a more dismal showing in this area. The last value reviewed in this section is the
importance of family. The Americans demonstrated the highest value in regards to family with
over 90% indicating that it was a very important aspect of their life, with the British coming in at
a close second.
Overall, the results of the World Values Survey revealed that the Americans view
religion, religious activities and family as very important. The importance of religion was at a
significantly higher rate than that of the Europeans. As Arthur C. Brooks and Peter Baldwin
revealed, there appears to be a higher correlation between holding religion in high esteem and
charitable giving which seems to be supported in the WVS. While the survey did not ask a
specific question regarding the level of giving, the survey did show that the Americans were a
close second to the British in their active participation in charitable and humanitarian
organizations. Baldwin also pointed out in his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, that
there appears to be a higher correlation in the American culture between families who view
volunteering and giving to charity as very important in respect to the charitable giving of the next
generation.

23
SOURCE: World Values Survey 2005-2008 http://www.wvsevsdb.com/wvs/WVSAnalizeQuestion.jsp

24
V. Primary Data on Giving Between Americans and Europeans

25
In an attempt to better understand the differences between Americans and Europeans and
their views on charitable giving, I conducted a survey asking similar questions to two sample
groups. The first sample group included 25 Europeans from the countries of Ireland, Great
Britain, France, Germany and Spain. The respondents’ ages in this group ranged from
approximately the early twenties to their early thirties. The second sample included 25
American with the age range again in the range from early twenties to early thirties.
Source: Charities and Non-Profit Organizations http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/LRZ3D8V
40%
12%12%
16%
20%
How likely are you to donate
money to a charity or non-profit
organizationin the next 12
months? (Europe)
Extremely Likely
Very Likely
Moderately Likey
Slightly Likely
Not at all Likely

26
The first question I asked was, “How likely are you to donate money to a charity or non-
profit organization in the next 12 months? “ To analyze the first question, the responses of
“extremely likely” and “very likely” were used. Europeans claimed that they 52% extremely
likely to very likely to give to charities, where the United States was slightly higher at 56%.
20%
36%
24%
12%
8%
How likely are you to donate
money to a charity or non-profit
organizationin the next 12
months? (United States)
Extremely Likely
Very Likely
Moderately Likely
Slightly Likely
Not at all Likely
12%
28%
32%
20%
8%
How helpful do you think your
donations to charities or non-
profit organizationsare? (Europe)
Extremely Helpful
Very Helpful
Moderately Helpful
Slightly Helpful
Not at all Helpful

27
The second question posed to the two sample groups involved their views on, “How
helpful do you think your donations to charities or non-profit organizations are?” When the
response answers included “extremely helpful” and “very helpful”, the sample from the
Europeans fell at 40%, while the Americans scored significantly higher at 60%.
32%
32%
24%
12%
0%
How helpful do you think your
donations to charities or non-
profit organizationsare? (United
States)
Extremely Helpful
Very Helpful
Moderately Helpful
Slightly Helpful
Not at all Helpful
0%
20%
60%
12%
8%
How well do you think most
charties or non-profit
organizationsare managed?
(Europe)
Extremely Well
Very Well
Moderately Well
Slightly Well
Not at all Well

28
The third question asked, “How well do you think most charities or non-profit
organizations are managed?” None of the Europeans felt that non-profits or charities were
managed “extremely well” with a score of 0%, but 20% felt that they were managed “very well.”
They Americans’ responses were closely in line with that of the Europeans, with 0% feeling
charities were managed “extremely well” and 22% “very well”.
0%
24%
68%
8%
0%
How well do you think most charties
or non-profit organizationsare
managed?
(United States)
Extremely Well
Very Well
Moderately Well
Slightly Well
Not at all Well

29
“How often do you donate money to donation buckets?” was the fourth question. None of
the Europeans donate money to money buckets “extremely often” with a score of 0%, but they
0%
28%
20%
20%
32%
How often do you donate money to
donation buckets? (Europe)
Extremely Often
Very Often
Moderately Often
Slightly Often
Not at all Often
4%
20%
24%36%
16%
How often do you donate money to
donation buckets? (United States)
Extremely Often
Very Often
Moderately Often
Slightly Often
Not at all Often

30
donate at a “very often” rate of 28%. The Americans indicated that they give money to buckets
“extremely often” at a rate of 4% which is higher than the Europeans, but not by much. Less
Americans donate to buckets “very often” at a rate of 20%, which is lower than the Europeans.
Overall the Americans and Europeans that responded to the surveys seemed to view
charitable giving in a similar manner. However, there was a more significant difference in
thought by about 20% when asked in the survey about how effectively charities or non-profits
are managed.
VI. Conclusion
Culture can be very multidimensional and complex. According to Ricca Edmondson
cultures cannot be understood by simply looking at them. Once one is submerged in a culture it
is also difficult to perceive and can often be overlooked because differences become inevitably
too obvious (Edmonson, 2000). The cryptic nature of culture can also have many dysfunctional
aspects. Culture can be deliberately manipulated for political or economic purposes. This is also
“…inevitable, because even such daily activities as greeting, apologizing, persuading,
reconciling, expressing affection or distance, are predicated precisely on the assumption that
actors do not, normally, consciously manipulate the cultural means of achieving them”
(Edmonson, 2000).
An example of how complex and multidimensional culture is would be how a society’s
culture influences and is closely tied to economics, politics and other institutions (Parekh, 2006).
Human beings can be conceptualized by saying they share a physical and mental structure.
Humans share a bond in the sense that they have certain basic needs. Such needs would include
“…skills, abilities, and dispositions as well as a reasonably coherent conception of the world in

31
order to… cope with the inevitable demands of personal and social life” (Parekh, 2006). All
human beings, therefore, would need an unwavering natural and social environment. In addition
to the environmental needs a person would require “close personal relationships, a measure of
emotional security, moral norms, and so forth” (Parekh, 2006). There is a common progression
of life and experiences that people incur. Through the progression of life people experience
ranges from highs to lows. Such events would include maturing, becoming an adult, falling in
and out of love, joys, sorrows, reaching your physical peak, growing old, losing loved ones and
preparing oneself for death. This being said, all humans share “…capacities, emotions and
dispositions which are universal, relatively permanent, acquired as part of their species-heritage
or by nature, and which tend to generate certain kinds of actions” (Parekh, 2006). Due to human
nature, culture, which can appear to be fundamentally beyond comprehension, can be grasped, to
a degree by the average person due to the commonalities of the progression of life (Edmonson,
2000; Parekh, 2006).
Along with culture, the business of giving is also a multi-dimensional and complex
enterprise; necessary to meet the fundamental needs of those less fortunate around the world.
Recent data obtained from the Index of Global Philanthropy and Remittances 2012 from the
Hudson Institute Center for Global Prosperity, indicated that overall charitable giving has been
increasing across the world even during tough financial times. The 2012 Index results, reviews
and analyzes data from the year 2010. According to the findings of the Index, global
philanthropy, remittances and private investment totaled $575 billion in 2010, with overall
government aid growing to one of its highest levels ever at $128 billion. Even with the US
experiencing some of its roughest financial times, American generosity has increased from 2009
to 2010. The Index reported that financial flows increased from $226.2 billion to $326.4 billion,

32
philanthropy increased from $37.5 billion to $39 billion and remittances also increased from
$90.5 billion to $95.8 billion (Adelman, 2012).
My personal goal, as I have grown up, has been to give what I can to improve others’
lives whether the two-legged humans or the four-legged furry kind. Throughout the years I have
run food drives, collected money for charitable organizations, rescued animals, volunteered and
worked with sexually abused and emotionally disturbed children, built houses for those in need,
provided hot meals and entertainment to elderly people, and did an internship as a volunteer
manager for Special Olympics Ireland. My professional ambition is to work for a non-profit
international organization that serves the needs of those less fortunate.
Oprah Winfrey has often talked about what she “knows for sure” and what she has
learned from her life lessons. I also have learned much from life, each charitable or volunteer
situation I have been placed in has taught me numerous things that I would have never known
ahead of time. In addition, the reading of literature, reviewing the research and the data obtained
from my surveys has taught me more and provided me with valuable information and insights
necessary to be a successful manager of an international non-profit organization someday in the
near future. To make sure the goals of the organization are reached, one must acknowledge and
understand the differences of culture as pointed out by Geert Hofstede and his five classifications
of culture. Another necessity is to engage in effective forms of communication with partners in
other countries. Do the people in another country prefer impersonal forms of communication;
such as fax or e-mail or do they prefer communication with human contact? The impact of
technology and social media has made rapid, overwhelming changes in our culture, almost
making us feel that our world may be smaller and bringing about events no one thought possible
before. Information from the Center for Global Prosperity indicated there are new and

33
innovative trends happening in philanthropy (Adelman, 2012). Dr. Susan Raymond reported that
the younger generation of philanthropists is no longer writing checks to pay for supplies needed
in impoverished countries, but are trying to find solutions for the future and to end the need,
making people in these countries more self-reliant and able to solve their own problems
(Adelman, 2012).
The research I reviewed and the data from my surveys, made me comfortable in drawing
the conclusion that Americans give more. The data I obtained from my surveys, while a small
sample, indicated there are “minor differences” between the Americans and Europeans in the
area of charitable giving. However, the Americans proved to be much more confident that the
organizations they were giving to would use their gifts more effectively. According to Arthur C.
Brooks, in his book Who Really Cares?, the propensity towards giving is not dependent on
income or wealth in America, but a unique human virtue that thrives on human love. In America,
Brooks (2006) pointed out that charity and giving of time is part of family life, although, many
childless couples in our country are very generous. Another important finding was made when
trying to determine why there are differences between the Americans and Europeans in
charitable giving. Information provided by Peter Baldwin in his book The Narcissism of Minor
Differences and results of the World Values Surveys (2008) demonstrated a high correlation
between religion and religious activities to charitable giving.
Finally I have learned from my personal experiences and research in literature that giving
makes you a happier person. As Hofstede pointed out in his model of Human Mental
Programming, human nature is learned and inherited; also it is human nature to feel joy and
happiness in life. Arthur C. Brooks, in his article Why Giving Makes you Happy, he noted that
American households that give were 43% more likely to be very happy than those who were

34
non-givers. Additional research reported by Brooks indicated that giving to charities also lowers
stress hormones and makes you less depressed due to physical changes in brain chemistry
(Brooks, 2007). Overall, the major lesson learned is that giving whether time or money provides
one with a much greater possibility of living a happier and healthier life.

35
Works Cited
Abercrombie, Nicholas, Stephen Hill, and Brian S. Turner. The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology.
4th. London: Penguin Books, 2000. Print.
Bloom, Paul, and Edward Skloot. Scaling Social Impact. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010.
Print.
Bonnell, Victoria and Hunt, Lynn. Beyond the Cultural Turn, University of California Press,
Berkeley, 1999.
Brooks, Arthur C. "Are Americans Generous?." Philanthropy Magazine. May/June 2006. Web. 7
May. 2012.
Brooks, Arthur C. Gifts of Time and Money. Lanham: Bowman and Littlefield, 2005. Print.
Brooks, Arthur C. "The Poor Gives More." Society and Culture. American Enterprise Institute,
2008. Web. 27 Apr 2012.
Brooks, Arthur C. Who Really Cares. New York: Basic Books, 2006. Print.
Brooks, Arthur C. "Why Giving Makes You Happy." American Enterprise Institute. 28 Dec
2007: n. page. Web. 7 May. 2012. <http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/why-
giving-makes-you-happy/>.
Chase, Phillip G. The Emergence of Culture, New York: Springer, 2006.
Cheng, Willie, Sharifah Mohamed, et al. The World that Changes the World: How philanthropy,
innovation, and entrepreneurship are transforming the social ecosystem. San Francisco:
John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print.
Edgell, Stephen. The Sociology of Work. London: Sage, 2006. Print.
Edmondson, Ricca, and Cecily Kelleher. Health Promotion: New Discipline or Multi-
Discipline? Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2000. Print.
Gannon, Martin J. Paradoxes of Culture and Globalization, Los Angeles: Sage, 2008.
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
Grint, Keith. The Sociology of Work. 3rd. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005. Print.
Harrison, Andrew L., International Business, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.
Hofstede, Geert and Hofstede, Gert Jan, Cultures and Organizations Software of the Mind, New
York: Mc-Graw-Hill, 2005. Print.

36
Hofstede, Geert H. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.
Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc., 1984. Print.
Hooker, John, Working Across Cultures, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003.
Hull Teegarden, Paige, Denice Rothman Hinden, and Paul Sturm. The Nonprofit Organizational
Culture Guide. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2011. Print
Lewis, Richard D. When Cultures Collide-Leading Across Cultures, Third Edition, Boston:
Nicholas Brealey Intl., 2006. Print.
Macionis, John J. Sociology, Eleventh Edition, Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2007.
Print.
Mohammed, Shaheed Nick, Communication of the Globalization of Culture, Lanham: Lexington
Books, 2011. Print.
Mole, John. Mind Your Manners. 3rd. Boston: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2003. Print.
Parekh, Bhikhu. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. 2nd ed.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Print.
Robinson, Andy. Selling Social Change (Without Selling Out). San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2002.
Print.
Rochester, Colin, Angela Ellis Pain, and Steven Howlett. Volunteering and Society in the 21st
Century. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010. Print.
Saul, J. Social innovation, inc.: 5 strategies for driving business growth through social change.
Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.
Wagner, Viqi. Poverty. Detriot: Greenhaven, 2008. Print.
Yunus, Muhammad. Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of
Capitalism. New York: PublicAffairs, 2007. Print.

MertensCultureandtheBusinessofGivingandVolunteering

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to MertensCultureandtheBusinessofGivingandVolunteering

Similar to MertensCultureandtheBusinessofGivingandVolunteering (20)

MertensCultureandtheBusinessofGivingandVolunteering