3.1 Individual and household giving
Overview
Through the Individual and Household Survey for this project, it is estimated that in the twelve months to the end of January 2005, 13.4 million Australians aged 18 or older, 86.9% of the adult population, gave a total of $5.7 billion
5. This meant that those giving gave an average of $424 each. The median for giving was $100, that is, half of those giving gave more than this amount, and the other half less.
In addition an estimated $2 billion was provided by individuals to nonprofit organisations through funds raised via events and ‘charity gambling’
6. An estimated
10.5 million people, or 68.6% of adult Australians, provided support to nonprofit organisations in this way, contributing an average of $127 annually. Most providing support in this way also made donations, but just fewer than 1 million who participated in these fundraising activities did not make donations during 2004. By far the most popular of these methods of giving was through gambling. The figures presented in this section are for donations of money by individuals and do not include giving through events and gambling.
Over the year to January 2005, an estimated 6.3 million people or 41% of the adult population, gave 836 million hours of their time as volunteers, an annual average of 132 hours each. The median for volunteering hours was 44, half volunteering more and half less that this amount.
There are no exactly comparable surveys that would enable precise comparisons to be drawn; however, there are several data sets that enable reasonably reliable estimates to be made of whether these figures represent an increase in giving and volunteering.
In 1997 the ABS collected data on giving from a random sample of 12,000 adult Australians. The survey was conducted on four occasions during the year, each occasion three months apart. Mostly respondents were asked about their giving over the previous quarter, but for some basic data they were asked to look back over a year.
The 1997 ABS survey showed that 9.1 million adult Australians, 69% of the adult population, gave a total of $3.02 billion, an average of $331 each (Lyons and Hocking, 2000). The data presented from this survey, for the year to January 2005, suggests a significant increase in giving over the intervening seven years, both in numbers giving and the average sum given.
With the qualifications noted above, comparing these two sources suggests that over the seven years since 1997, there has been an increase of about 18% in the proportion of the adult population who give and an 88% increase in the amount given. This represents an average annual increase of 12.5% in the amount given. When we take account of inflation from 1997 to 2004, we find the real increase in the value of giving to be 58%.
The likelihood that the 2005 data is exaggerated to some extent by a ‘halo effect’ caused by the positive endorsement of giving surrounding the Tsunami, has already been noted. However, a comparison with four other data sets was undertaken and this also suggested that the giving of money has increased in real terms over the past decade.
7Comparing giving in Australia with the USA in 2004 we find that giving as a proportion of GDP in the USA is 1.6% and for Australia it is 0.68%. In Canada in the year 2000, donations were equivalent to 0.46% of GDP. This indicates that when the differences in the size of economies is taken into account, the USA generates more than twice the level of giving of Australia, and Australians give about one and a half times as much as Canadians on average.
When we turn to the giving of time, a similar story confronts us, though it is one that is slightly better documented. In 1995 and again in 2000, the ABS conducted a voluntary work survey. Several questions about volunteering were also asked in the 2002 General Social Survey (ABS 2003). These indicate a gradual increase in both the volunteering rate and in the number of hours volunteered. Along with its estimates for volunteering in 2000, the ABS also released revised figures for volunteering in 1995 (ABS 2001). This showed a volunteering rate of 24% and total hours volunteered of 512 million. The average hours volunteered by each volunteer was 160 per year. In 2000 the figures were a volunteering rate of 31%, a total of 704 million hours and an average number of hours per volunteer of 160 per year. By 2002 the rate had increased to 34% (no estimates of hours were provided). The data presented here for the year to 2005 also indicates an increase in both the percentage of the population who volunteer (41%) and in the total number of hours volunteered (836 million per year).
Interestingly, the average number of hours volunteered by each volunteer over the 12 month period has declined (from 160 in 2000 to 132 hours in the year to 2005). This decline in average hours is not particularly surprising. The big increase in the numbers of people volunteering is likely to be heavily weighted toward those who volunteer only a few hours. This would be true both of those who have only just begun to volunteer and also of those who have volunteered for many years but have only recently come to think of themselves as volunteers.
Over the past decade there has been much greater publicity given to volunteering, and a huge endorsement of it. The lead up to the 2000 Olympics and the Games themselves were pivotal in this, as was the 2001 International Year of Volunteers. Based on data on length of time volunteered in the 2000 Voluntary Work Survey (ABS, 2001), we estimate that half the increase in the volunteer rate over the preceding five years from 24% to 31% was due to new volunteers and half due to long term volunteers coming to recognise that what they had been doing was volunteering. A recent survey by Newspoll for Volunteering Australia reports that 77% of respondents said they were more aware of volunteering now than they were five years ago. Almost 80% said they believed volunteering was now more important for the community than it was five years previously. That survey (by telephone of a random sample of 1200 adults) reported a volunteering rate of 46% (Volunteering Australia, 2005).
According to a large sample survey conducted in 2003 by the United States Department of Labor, 27.6% of Americans aged 16 and over volunteered during the twelve months to September 2002 (United States Department of Labor 2002). The median number of hours volunteered was 52 per year. A significantly higher proportion of Australians volunteered, but with slightly lower median hours than Americans.
In 2000, 27% of Canadians over 15 volunteered for a total of 1050 million hours, or an average of 163 hours per volunteer (Hall et al 2001). The rate has decreased since 1997, though the average hours volunteered have increased. It can be seen that a significantly higher percentage of adult Australians volunteer, but for fewer hours on average than Canadian volunteers.
[
top ]
Characteristics of individual givers
The Individual and Household Survey conducted for this study has confirmed known and long-standing patterns for individual givers and their
demographic characteristics. These include:
- More women give, men give more often. 89.5% of women reported having made a donation in the year to January 2005, while 84.1% of men reported giving a donation. Men tend to give more when they do give, reflecting their higher incomes on average (the average annual amount given by women was $377 and, for men, $477 per year).
- More women volunteer and for longer than men. 45.9% of women reported volunteering in the year of the survey and average hours volunteered over the year were 139; men volunteered at a rate of 35.8% for an average of 123 hours in that year. Of all volunteer hours undertaken, 60% were provided by women.
- More older people give more. The likelihood that people will give increases slightly with age until middle age and then declines slightly (those aged 45-55 give at a rate of 88.4% and give, on average $500 per year). Those aged over 34 years are slightly more likely to give than the overall average for the adult population. Those over 65 who donate, on average make the largest donation and contribute, proportional to their numbers, the largest amount overall.
- More in middle age volunteer, but for fewer hours than others. The volunteer rate shows a typical inverted “U” shape, peaking for the 35-44 age groups (among which 46.6% volunteer). However, the distribution of mean hours takes the opposite shape, with the largest number of hours on average being contributed by older and younger volunteers (178 hours per year for those 55-65, and 132 hours per year for those 1824). Those aged between 23 and 54 are the most likely to have dependent children, and thus have greater demands made on them to volunteer in various activities that their children enjoy. They are also least likely to have many hours to devote to volunteering.
Income is a critical factor in the giving of money and overlays other factors (as seen in the note regarding women and giving of money). Again this relationship, together with related factors of labour force status and education, has been borne out by this research. Key findings are:
- More on higher incomes give and give more. The rate of giving and amounts given rise with income; those with incomes under $15,599 per year give at a rate of 82.6% and at an average of $264 per year; those on annual incomes of $52,000 or higher give at a rate of 90.5% for an average of $769 per year.
- Rates of volunteering are constant for income, but the amount of time given is greater the lower the income. The proportion of those in the community who volunteer is fairly constant for income (ranging from 39.9% to 44.1%). However, those on low incomes volunteer more than those who have higher incomes (those on incomes under $15,599 per year average 159 hours per year, those on incomes over $52,000 average 91 hours per year).
- High levels of education and labour force status correlate with high rates and amounts of giving. Related to the trends for income, those with higher levels of education, and those in professional and management positions, tend to give money at greater rates, and greater amounts, than those with low levels of education or lower status/pay jobs or those who are unemployed.
- The rate of volunteering rises with educational attainment but hours volunteered fall. Those with a school level only education volunteer at a rate of 36.9% but for an annual average of 142 hours. Those with a Bachelor or higher degree volunteer at a rate of 49.6% but for an average of 114 hours per year.
As the relationship between income and giving is fairly obvious for most, it tended to have been raised naturally as part of qualitative research in support of this project. Some of the key findings for ‘everyday individuals’ – those on average working incomes – and wealthier individuals, are summarised below.
These findings for
everyday individuals include:
- Everyday individuals have their own comfort levels for giving beyond which they reach a saturation point. Many such people gave several hundred dollars annually. Analysis of focus groups and in-depth interviews categorised giving by such individuals as:
- reactive – spontaneous and often not associated with any great affinity with the recipient cause eg when asked in the street, at the door, at a function, at work, by direct mail or phone
- as a believer to causes – included giving by people who were strong supporters of the organisation’s cause, and when approached by the organisation, they were more likely to give larger amounts (eg. $20 – $50). Subsequent involvement with the organisation tended to encourage this group to progress into some planned means of giving (eg. regular, automatic payroll, credit card or bank account deductions).
- proactive – where givers were very strong supporters of causes, often giving $100 or more via child sponsorship or a regular church donation; these are often decided upon as a family and repeated at least annually.
- Tax deductions only tended to be claimed when higher amounts were donated. Some reported that they did not make claims as they failed to collect receipts or to recall amounts given.
- All individuals (regardless of location) preferred volunteering in their local community.
Among
wealthy individuals the qualitative research found:
- They mainly saw themselves giving money (time was a scarcer commodity for them). However, on prompting, common volunteer roles included service on nonprofit boards or committees, or occasionally by asking others to donate or by providing contact for this to occur.
- Approaches to these donors were commonly personal, often from their social circle and for money or 3-5 year pledges. However, many reported that asking others to give was difficult and they feared could strain relationships.
- The social contract seemed important – as a successful, respected professional they felt they had a responsibility and desire to support worthy causes. When passion for a cause kicked in, giving increased substantially. Over time, charitable trusts and foundations become an option for more commitment.
- Few discussed or promoted giving, fearing an ‘asking avalanche’ would result in unmanageable and guilt inducing requests for further support. Wealthy non-givers were disdained and some givers felt they were shouldering the burden for all without wanting to. Most affluent people knew of non-givers in their ranks.
- High interest was shown in new and innovative projects or their own projects where it was possible to place their personal stamp on things.
- Their main concerns included nonprofit duplication of effort, accountability and effectiveness.
- Giving tended to range from:
- ‘social’ level – at a yearly gala or event but with giving of significant amounts of up to several thousand dollars, this giving was more reactive than proactive
- change agents – giving because they are personally touched, committed or actively cultivated and often giving at high levels of between $10,000 and $50,000 per year
- high ‘sustained’ giving – this often occurs through formal foundations that mean giving is organised and enduring over time and across generations, this is often focused on particular causes and can be around $50,000 per year.
- Most affluent givers claimed tax deductions (through their accountant or adviser) and these deductions were an incentive. The exceptions were those with a particular cause passion who gave anyway and very generously in time and money.
Location is a factor in giving, although with only slight variations in most cases. Key findings include:
- Variations between states and between capital cities. Adelaide stands out with the highest rate of giving of money (90.5%), closely followed by Perth and non-metropolitan Queensland. But the highest average gifts are made by Sydney-siders ($524 per year); this probably reflects that city’s higher income profile (see Table 1 below), although it also has the highest living costs. Sydney and Melbourne, whose residents comprise 40% of our sample, contributed almost half the funds donated.
- Those in regional areas volunteer at higher rates than those in cities, but for fewer hours. People living in capital cities are less likely to volunteer than those in the regions but, with the exception of Sydney, city-dwellers tend to volunteer for longer hours compared with their non-metropolitan cousins (see Table 2 below).
Table 1: Donations by location
| |
% DONATED
IN PAST
12 MONTH |
MEAN
DONATION
$ |
% TOTAL
DONATIONS |
% TOTAL
CASES |
| Sydney |
87.6 |
524 |
26.4 |
21.4 |
| NSW Country |
84.5 |
428 |
12.3 |
12.2 |
| Melbourne |
88.0 |
485 |
21.1 |
18.5 |
| VIC Country |
86.0 |
397 |
6.2 |
6.7 |
| Brisbane |
85.8 |
377 |
7.7 |
8.7 |
| QLD Country |
88.5 |
378 |
9.4 |
10.6 |
| Adelaide |
90.5 |
344 |
4.9 |
6.0 |
| SA Country |
78.7 |
370 |
1.5 |
1.7 |
| Perth |
89.0 |
303 |
5.3 |
7.5 |
| WA Country |
82.4 |
256 |
1.5 |
2.4 |
| Tasmania/ACT/NT |
82.4 |
350 |
3.6 |
4.4 |
| Total |
86.9 |
424 |
100 |
100 |
Table 2: Volunteering by location
| |
% DONATED
IN PAST
12 MONTH |
MEAN
DONATION
$ |
% TOTAL
DONATIONS |
% TOTAL
CASES |
| Sydney
| 36.7 |
125 |
18.0 |
21.4 |
| NSW Country
| 44.0 |
137 |
13.9 |
12.2 |
| Melbourne
| 40.2 |
135 |
18.3 |
18.5 |
| VIC Country
| 46.1 |
124 |
7.1 |
6.7 |
| Brisbane
| 37.7 |
134 |
8.2 |
8.7 |
| QLD Country
| 41.4 |
131 |
10.4 |
10.6 |
| Adelaide
| 39.5 |
164 |
6.9 |
6.0 |
| SA Country
| 52.0 |
125 |
2.3 |
1.7 |
| Perth
| 37.3 |
132 |
6.6 |
7.5 |
| WA Country
| 49.4 |
118 |
2.7 |
2.4 |
| Tasmania/ACT/NT
| 51.5 |
126 |
5.6 |
4.4 |
| Total |
41.0 |
132 |
100 |
100 |
Qualitative research found that, in contrast to their metropolitan counterparts, those living in regional areas saw themselves inextricably and personally linked with their community; a high degree of interdependence and a concern for survival is evident in the need to work together. The weather also influenced giving patterns, for example drought has an impact on capacity to donate and rainfall can impair capacity to physically engage in volunteering. Smaller, relatively isolated cities (Hobart, Perth, even Adelaide) were often focused on local causes.
Place of birth is a factor in giving. The key findings from the survey are:
- Only slight differences in rates of giving, while amounts given vary by place of birth. The highest rates of giving are from overseas born English speakers (89.1%) who, on average, give $438 per year; those from overseas non-English speaking backgrounds give at a rate of 83%, on average of $398 per year. For those born in Australia the rate is 87.1% for $426 per year.
- Rates of volunteering and hours given are lowest for those from non-English backgrounds. Those from non-English speaking backgrounds volunteer at the lowest rates (32.7%) and give the lowest hours per annum (124) compared with those born overseas in English speaking countries (40.2% and 157 hours per year) or those born in Australia (42.2% and 130 hours per year).
It is relevant to note that patterns of giving of time and money may, for some from culturally diverse backgrounds, be focused on the needs of extended family and community networks either in Australia or overseas. These forms of giving may not have been adequately captured by our survey method. For some, such engagement may not be perceived as giving. Data from Roy Morgan Research (Giving Australia, 2004) found that while rates of donation of money are fairly stable across most groups based on background, those born in Greece and the USA tended to donate more. These findings are suggestive of cultural differences in, and understanding of, giving.
Household type is a factor in giving. The type of household in which a person lives seems to have little effect on giving. However the following were notable:
- Sole parents and those living in group/share households give less money. These groups often have low incomes on average (those in group/share households often being students) and give less money than others ($290 per year for sole parents compared with $466 per year for a couple living with children at home; $313 per year for those in a group/share household compared with $431 per year for a person living alone).
- Sole parents are active volunteers. Single parents volunteer at a slightly higher rate than two parent families (49.2% compared with 46.1%) and volunteer for slightly more hours on average (129 hours per year compared with 122 hours per year).
Qualitative research in support of this project identified a desire among parents and others to provide a positive role model for children and that this was as an important factor in parents engaging in giving as a way of encouraging their children to do so as well.
[
top ]
3.2 Business giving
Overview
The key findings from the Survey of Business resulting from this research are:
- the total value of giving found through this survey for the 2003-04 year was $3.3 billion – given by 67% of all Australian businesses or 525,900 businesses
- business giving consisted of 68% in money ($2.21 billion), 16% in goods ($0.52 billion) and 16% in services ($0.52 billion)
- business giving consisted of 58% in donations ($1.9 billion – given by 58% of all Australian businesses or 451,600 businesses); 25% in sponsorship ($0.81 billion – given by 20% of all Australian businesses or 156,700 businesses); and 17% in community business projects ($0.54 billion – given by 19% of all Australian businesses or 148,700 businesses).
Figure 1: Number of businesses by type of giving
Small and medium sized businesses are the most numerous across industries generally and together give the greatest amount. However, by comparison more large businesses give and give more. Businesses with fewer than 11 employees account for 89% of all Australians businesses and 66% participated in some form of giving (giving $1.5 billion or 47% of all business giving). At the other end of business size, businesses with 501+ employees account for fewer than 1% of all businesses in Australia and 89% participated in some form of giving (giving $654 million or 20% of all business giving).
Large businesses tend to engage in more sophisticated forms of giving, such as community business projects and sponsorship, and tend to have developed programs for giving.
Measured in terms of the proportion of businesses giving, more direct customer service businesses give more often—Construction (92%), Health and/or Community Services (90%), Utilities (87%) and Communication Services (84%). In terms of amount given, businesses in the Property/Business Services ($668 million), Construction ($529 million) and Retail Trade ($505 million) were the most generous.
More businesses in South Australia, compared with businesses in other states, give and a higher amount. Businesses in regional Australia express a strong preference for giving to local nonprofit organisations.
There are a number of important qualifications in comparing the Survey of Business reported here with the only other study of business giving undertaken in Australia (ABS, 2002b). The ABS was able to sample a full array of Australian businesses and was able to compel businesses to participate. Also a ‘halo effect’ of the Tsunami appeals just prior to the conduct of the present survey were likely to have had an influence, causing some businesses to exaggerate their non-Tsunami giving. However, even with these qualifications it is evident that business giving has grown.
For the 2000-01 year the ABS (2002b) estimated the following:
- the total value of giving was $1.5 billion
- business giving consisted of 64% in money ($0.9 billion), 16% in goods ($0.2 billion) and 20% in services ($0.3 billion)
- business giving consisted of 40% in donations ($0.6 billion); 47% in sponsorship ($0.7 billion); and 13% in community business projects ($0.2 billion).
At face value, the comparisons between the ABS data for 2000-01 and the findings of this research for 2003-04 suggest an increase of more than double in business giving over three years. This may be an over-estimate and will partly be a function of the different methods employed by the two studies. Somewhat more confidence may be had in comparing the proportions of ‘what’ (money, goods, services) and ‘how’ (donations, sponsorship, community business projects) of business giving.
These comparisons suggest that over this period business is now somewhat more likely to give money and goods, but is relatively less likely to give in the form of services.
The same comparisons for how business gives suggest that business is now more likely to give by way of donations and community business projects, but is relatively less likely to give through sponsorship.
Industry differences in giving
Businesses in industries involving direct customer service tend to give most often. Key findings regarding industry difference, presented in Table 3, include:
- Businesses giving most often, measured in terms of proportion of businesses giving, were Construction (92%), Health and/or Community Services (90%), Utilities (87%) and Communication Services (84%). The most generous industries for donations were Construction, Utilities and Communication Services. Contributions to community business projects were most likely to be made by businesses in Health/Community Services (81%), Accommodation/Cafes /Restaurants (62%), Retail Trade (27%) and Transport/Storage (21%). Sponsorship was most common among Retail Trade (46%), Communication Services (33%) and Construction (23%).
- Businesses that gave less frequently were, in terms of proportion of businesses giving, businesses in Education and Transport & Storage, both with less than 25% involvement in overall giving.
Table 3: Businesses involved in each type of giving by industry
| |
TYPE OF GIVING |
| |
DONATIONS |
COMMUNITY
PROJECTS |
SPONSORSHIP |
NET TOTAL |
TOTAL
BUSINESS |
| Mining |
1,200 |
300 |
600 |
1,200 |
2,800 |
| |
44% |
9% |
20% |
45% |
100% |
| Manufacturing |
26,000 |
11,300 |
2,600 |
26,300 |
62,000 |
| |
42% |
18% |
4% |
43% |
100% |
| Electricity, Gas, Water |
500 |
0 |
0 |
500 |
600 |
| |
87% |
<1% |
<1% |
87% |
100% |
| Construction |
103,300 |
7,900 |
26,300 |
103,500 |
113,500 |
| |
91% |
7% |
23% |
92% |
100% |
| Wholesale Trade |
24,700 |
6,100 |
1,500 |
30,600 |
46,900 |
| |
53% |
13% |
3% |
65% |
100% |
| Retail Trade |
90,900 |
33,600 |
58,500 |
91,000 |
126,400 |
| |
72% |
27% |
46% |
72% |
100% |
| Accommodation, Cafes, |
30,200 |
25,100 |
2,800 |
30,400 |
40,200 |
| Restaurants |
75% |
62% |
7% |
76% |
100% |
| Transport, Storage |
9,300 |
8,000 |
8,100 |
9,300 |
37,500 |
| |
25% |
21% |
22% |
25% |
100% |
| Communication Services |
6,700 |
200 |
2,700 |
6,800 |
8,100 |
| |
83% |
2% |
33% |
84% |
100% |
| Finance, Insurance |
24,400 |
2,000 |
11,400 |
32,900 |
52,400 |
| |
47% |
4% |
22% |
63% |
100% |
| Property, Business Services |
114,300 |
8,000 |
35,500 |
127,000 |
172,100 |
| |
67% |
5% |
21% |
74% |
100% |
| Education |
1,200 |
900 |
700 |
2,100 |
10,800 |
| |
11% |
8% |
7% |
20% |
100% |
| Health, Community Services |
4,400 |
43,800 |
3,000 |
48,800 |
54,200 |
| |
8% |
81% |
6% |
90% |
100% |
| Cultural, Recreational Services |
5,400 |
900 |
300 |
6,000 |
20,000 |
| |
27% |
5% |
2% |
30% |
100% |
| Personal/Other Services |
9,000 |
500 |
2,800 |
9,500 |
32,800 |
| |
27% |
2% |
9% |
29% |
100% |
| Total |
451,600 |
148,700 |
156,700 |
525,900 |
780,300 |
| |
58% |
19% |
20% |
67% |
100% |
The industries which gave the largest amounts overall were Property/Business Services ($668 million), Construction ($529 million) and Retail Trade ($505 million).
Businesses in these industries also tended to donate the largest amounts, rather than give via sponsorship or community business partnerships. Greater giving by these industries as a whole was driven by the fact that these are some of the biggest industries in terms of number of businesses. However, as can be seen from Table 4, the proportion of businesses actually giving from these industries was above average.
The Retail Trade gave the largest amount to community business projects –$93 million —followed by Health/Community Services ($82 million) and Finance/Insurance ($77 million). Unlike most other industries, the Health/Community Services industry gave more to community business projects than in donations and sponsorship.
The Retail Trade gave the largest amount to sponsorship ($155 million), followed by Transport/Storage and Finance/Insurance (each about $109 million).
[
top ]
Table 4: Value of each type of giving by industry ($’000)
| |
TYPE OF GIVING |
| |
DONATIONS
$'000 |
COMMUNITY
PROJECTS
$'000 |
SPONSORSHIP
$'000 |
TOTAL
$'000 |
| Mining |
4,409 |
4,094 |
1,240 |
9,743 |
| Manufacturing |
126,035 |
36,267 |
85,623 |
247,925 |
| Electricity, Gas, Water |
560 |
92 |
391 |
1,043 |
| Construction |
458,221 |
26,634 |
43,851 |
528,706 |
| Wholesale Trade |
62,651 |
2,394 |
94,271 |
159,316 |
| Retail Trade |
256,690 |
93,324 |
155,371 |
505,385 |
| Accommodation, Cafes, Restaurants |
61,146 |
65,675 |
9,671 |
136,492 |
| Transport, Storage |
67,908 |
45,663 |
109,566 |
223,137 |
| Communication Services |
16,848 |
3,047 |
6,173 |
26,068 |
| Finance, Insurance |
65,196 |
77,417 |
108,972 |
251,585 |
| Property, Business Services |
532,028 |
61,645 |
73,863 |
667,536 |
| Education |
3,388 |
3,940 |
2,545 |
9,873 |
| Health, Community Services |
55,572 |
82,432 |
54,551 |
192,555 |
| Cultural, Recreational Services |
118,797 |
25,405 |
34,691 |
178,893 |
| Personal/Other Services |
71,712 |
11,950 |
29,787 |
113,449 |
| Total |
1,901,161 |
539,979 |
810,566 |
3,251,706 |
Business size and giving
Giving was more likely to be made by larger businesses (in terms of number of employees). Of businesses with less than 11 employees, 66% participated in some form of giving, while the equivalent figures for businesses with 11-50 employees were 77%, and 96% among businesses with 501+ employees.
The proportions of businesses giving in the form of donations followed a similar pattern. community business projects and sponsorship were also more likely to be undertaken by larger rather than smaller organisations.
Businesses with 1-10 employees gave the largest amount overall—$1.5 billion or 47% of all business giving. This group makes up 89% of Australian businesses. However, businesses with 501+ employees gave a relatively large amount ($654 million or 20% of all business giving) for a group of only approximately 1,500 businesses (less than 1% of all businesses).
A cross tabulation of business size, measured by number of employees, by how businesses give—money, goods (including a detailing of specific goods) and services (also detailed) has been undertaken. Larger businesses give all forms of assistance to nonprofit organisations more often on average than smaller businesses. However, very small businesses have been found to more often give some specific forms of goods and services compared with larger businesses. Businesses with under 11 employees were more likely to give accommodation (7%) than either businesses with 501+ employees (6%) or the overall average (6%). Similarly, these very small business were more likely than larger businesses to provide services in the form of strategic planning and management advice (6%) than businesses with 501+ employees (4%). The small businesses were also more likely to provide staff training (9%) and employee time (15%) than the overall averages (8% and 14% respectively).
Businesses with 501+ employees gave the largest amount in sponsorship ($264 million) and the second largest amount in community business projects ($184 million). It seems that these more sophisticated forms of business giving tend to be relatively more accessible for larger businesses.
Focus group and in-depth interview research in support of this project, lead to a number of observations regarding business size and giving. These include:
- Strong giving by mostly larger businesses showed the importance of espoused social responsibility values and a delineation between sponsorship and other giving, as well as the application of policies, plans and sometimes people to administer giving, sometimes through a mix of giving of staff time, money and goods. This was often associated with staff being interested in volunteering and an associated focus on ‘work-life balance’. Often larger businesses had a formal corporate foundation.
- Among larger businesses, giving is clearly distinguished from, but complements, marketing, human resource and corporate strategies; localised staff efforts (volunteering, staff donations) were encouraged, as well as choosing causes – these were seen as empowering staff, lifting morale, finding support from head office; larger businesses were often motivated by a sense of social responsibility and desire to express their values as an organisation.
- The larger businesses that give most consistently tend to have won management commitment, have a formal budget, qualified staff and systems in place to manage this function within the organisation.
- Those least likely to give were often small and medium sized businesses that displayed a concern that giving contradicted their responsibility to stakeholders and/or shareholders—principals in a business were likely to consider giving as a personal or private responsibility. Such businesses tended to lack a giving ‘vision’, a clearly defined function for giving and/or had few systems to record or budget for giving. These businesses had little exposure to best practice giving, reported difficulty coping with requests from nonprofit organisations and tended to blur the lines between commercial activities, such as sponsorship, and more altruistic engagement; they were often focused on business sustainability or survival.
- Small and medium businesses were generally less organised and more reactive in their giving than large businesses. Small, locally-based businesses, often with a retail shopfront identified closely with their immediate community, and reported operating on a relatively tight cash flow; however they felt part of the local community and were happy to contribute to it. They were almost exclusively approached by locally-based nonprofit organisations (such as the local football club) and they gave consistently, at a relatively low level, to these causes. Some were engaged through service clubs (for example, Lions or Rotary) in community causes and this individual activity seemed to influence their attitudes to giving within their business.
- There was a strong interest in better managing giving practices, especially by small and medium businesses.
[
top ]
Location of business and giving
The Survey of Business for the project was able to identify the State/Territory location of business but breaking data down to regional (eg metropolitan/non-metropolitan) proved difficult as many businesses have a wide scope of operations. However, differences by State were observed and are presented in Table 5. These included:
- The amount of giving was fairly much in proportion to the number of businesses, except that South Australia had 12% of the giving but only 6% of the businesses, and Queensland had 9% of the giving compared with 19% of the businesses.
- South Australian businesses participated in some form of giving to a greater extent (80%) than West Australian businesses (49%). Relatively large proportions of South Australian businesses gave in the form of donations and sponsorship, while a relatively large proportion of Queensland businesses gave to community business projects.
Qualitative research identified a strong preference among businesses in regional and rural communities to give to local causes and nonprofit organisations.
Table 5: Businesses involved in each type of giving by State
| |
TYPE OF GIVING |
| |
DONATIONS |
COMMUNITY
PROJECTS |
SPONSORSHIP |
NET TOTAL |
TOTAL
BUSINESS |
| NSW |
171,400 |
49,500 |
37,100 |
184,700 |
281,600 |
| |
61% |
18% |
13% |
66% |
100% |
| VIC |
140,100 |
36,200 |
59,400 |
142,200 |
202,500 |
| |
69% |
18% |
29% |
70% |
100% |
| QLD |
41,500 |
50,400 |
12,000 |
98,800 |
146,500 |
| |
28% |
34% |
8% |
67% |
100% |
| SA |
37,300 |
2,000 |
20,300 |
37,500 |
47,200 |
| |
79% |
4% |
43% |
80% |
100% |
| WA |
34,500 |
1,200 |
3,300 |
35,100 |
72,200 |
| |
48% |
2% |
5% |
49% |
100% |
| Total |
451,600 |
148,700 |
156,700 |
525,900 |
780,300 |
| (inc. TAS, NT, ACT) |
58% |
19% |
20% |
67% |
100% |