Chapter 3 - Ideology and motivation of the sectors
In this section:
Corporate community partnerships are able to address, or assist in addressing societal issues and produce outcomes that governments cannot (or cannot do alone), and that businesses and not-for-profit organisations cannot achieve exclusively.
These partnerships are unique in that they often bring together entities with different ideologies. While some not-for-profit organisations and large businesses (the focus of this report) may have different views about how activity should be measured and how profits should be distributed, they share frequently the notion that risk should be embraced to achieve their respective outcomes. This is very different to the philosophy underpinning the government.
This report examines barriers to corporate community partnerships developing further in Australia, examines differences between not-for-profit organisations (NFPs) and corporations, identifies positive and negative factors at play in these partnerships, and focuses also on trends and developments. It looks also at how to best leverage the operations and activities of NFP organisations to enhance interactions with large businesses.
It comes at a time when economic uncertainty has been prompted by a crisis in international credit markets, which is creating uncertainty in business, governments, among NFPs and in the wider community.
The depth of any economic downturn in Australia from 2008 is likely to test the strength of many corporate community partnerships. NFP organisations, business and governments are aware that during past economic downturns in Australia and internationally, investment in the community by corporations has been strained by business financial considerations.
These past developments occurred when corporate community investment and corporate community partnerships were generally at an early and less sophisticated stage of evolution. How these partnerships will be tested during and following the financial crisis that enveloped markets in September 2008, will be watched keenly by those analysing the path of business relations with NFPs.
This report included quantitative survey research with 153 not-for-profit organisations and qualitative research workshops of NFPs in Sydney, Canberra, Perth and Melbourne, as well as individual consultations with senior NFP sector executives. It follows the 2007 publication by the Centre for Corporate Public Affairs and the Business Council of Australia, Corporate Community Investment in Australia.
The not-for-profit and business viewpoints
Business views of not-for-profit sector
As discussed in Chapter 2, previous research by the Centre (Centre for Corporate Public Affairs 2007) illustrates a desire by business to form closer and deeper relationships with NFP organisations.
Many business leaders and NFPs believe that their partnerships are able to deliver some outcomes that cannot be produced by their organisations alone, and that cannot be generated by governments.
Community trust in business is significantly lower than NFP organisations, and there is an expectation in the community that business will work more closely with NFP organisations than in the past as one element of corporate social responsibility.
The business sector increasingly views not-for-profit organisations as key stakeholders, either directly, or as proxies for community interests.
Best practice stakeholder engagement for business includes effective stakeholder engagement plans to ensure the views of relevant not-for-profit organisations are considered by the business, particularly its community investment activities and issues relevant to activist or advocacy NFP organisations.
Historically, many advocacy-oriented not-for-profit organisations have identified and targeted businesses associated with particular social or environmental problems for criticism and action.
In addition, there has tended to be a perception that the profit motive of business is antithetical to the values and interests of social activists and vice versa. This explains much of the past antagonism between the NFP and business sectors. For this reason, some businesses have viewed NFP organisations as a potential threat, or as competitors (Abzug & Webb 1999).
As noted previously, in recent years this dynamic has begun to shift towards less scepticism, and more willingness to viewing business and NFP organisations as partners rather than rivals.
The Centre has noted this shift in past research it has conducted for government and peak business groups (summarised in Section 2.1). Many businesses have realised that the issues and concerns NFP organisations bring to their attention often need to be addressed for their own interests, and for those of the community.
Partnerships with NFPs are seen increasingly as vehicles through which businesses can address their community aspirations and relationship goals, and win community support.
Anheier and Salamon (1998) highlight some of the benefits that NFP organisations bring to partnerships including:
- sharing their experience and expertise in order to improve the quality of the business’ policy on a specific issue
- acting as a liaison between the business and the community in which it operates
- representing the public interest in business decision making processes
- demonstrating transparency and accountability
- strengthening public perception of the business through association.
These are illustrated in the following example of mining-giant Rio Tinto’s partnerships.
CASE STUDY — RIO TINTO’S COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
Rio Tinto engages in a variety of local partnerships around its operations. It seeks to build these partnerships on the basis of mutual respect, active partnership and long-term commitment.
Community consultations and active participation are the foundation for the partnerships. The community consultations strive for openness and transparency, and aim to:
reflect local convention and protocols, as well as taking into account the views of marginal, inadequately represented or vulnerable groups
keep communities fully informed about the activities of the company
be two-way discussions that cover community issues and priorities, as well as the needs of the company
keep a full record of all formal and informal meetings.
Rio Tinto also commissions baseline and social impact assessments by academic institutions and NGOs in order to understand the impact of Rio Tinto on local communities, and identify ways in which the company can build local skills and knowledge.
Source: Rio Tinto 2008.
Research suggests also the business sector often does not clearly understand a number of common characteristics of the not-for-profit sector. This creates challenges when establishing and maintaining a relationship with a NFP organisation.
Common challenges that business are perceived not to grasp fully include:
- central importance of the NFP core mission prioritised above economic or financial concerns
- unrealistic expectations by corporations of how quickly the partnership can achieve a socially stated goal
- tension between the NFP sector’s long-term social world outlook and the perceived short-term three to five year economic outlook of corporations
- implications of constant NFP funding and resource shortage
- NFP difficulty in quantifying program success
- multiplicity of internal and external NFP stakeholders and need for continual consensus building in voluntarist organisations
- undervaluing NFP contribution, leading to expectations that they should continue to look to increase value-add in a partnership (Berger et al. 2004).
Not-for-profit views of the business sector
While it is by no means universal, not-for-profit organisations increasingly view business as an important partner in the community and supporting NFP programs and services.
Many NFP organisations participating in research for this report are of the view that often, corporate/community partnerships are able to generate outcomes and address issues that governments cannot; or that they can contribute significantly to outcomes that governments or NFPs cannot achieve alone.
Our research indicates also that while government funding remains a higher proportion of income for NFPs than income from business — including via corporate/community partnerships — the nature of funding from corporations via partnerships can be more sustainable than that from governments.
Importantly, unlike many funding sources from governments, funding for some NFPs through partnerships with business can be for longer periods and allow the NFP to plan better to sustain its operations and achieve its outcomes. This can be very different to the sometimes short-term funding from government.
Most not-for-profit organisations participating in the Centre’s survey for this report believe that the business sector forms close relationships with NFP organisations for public relations reputation and marketing purposes, philanthropic motives, or because of business strategy and business model.
Fig 3.1: Business relationships with not for profit organisations
Survey question: What do you believe are the main reasons why businesses form closer relationships and work with NFP community organisations?
Source: Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, Survey of NFP organisations 2008. Note: The response categories ‘strongly agree’/‘agree’ and ‘strongly disagree’/’disagree’ are combined in this graph. Responses in the ‘other’ category include motivation based on tax benefits, as well as staff attraction and retention.
The survey differs in some degree with the Centre’s 2007 survey of Australian businesses. The 2007 results from business indicated that more than 90 per cent of companies consider community activities (and partnerships with community organisations) are (inter alia) directed at building reputation, community trust and support.
About 90 per cent also see it related to employee engagement, and as integral to strategy and the business model (Centre for Corporate Public Affairs 2007).
During our qualitative research for this report, NFP organisations participating in workshop discussions added business employee attraction, retention and engagement, as prime motivators for business seeking partnerships with NFP organisations.
One workshop participant commented on the change of focus they have seen with their corporate partners:
We have seen a change from our corporate partners from public engagement to internal engagement. Rather than talking publicly about their partnerships, it is more important to demonstrate these internally to employees, suppliers and even customers.
Our survey results highlight some gaps in how not-for-profit organisations view their performance in terms of fairness, respect, flexibility, timeliness and treatment of staff when working in partnerships, compared to their perceptions of business views on their performance and attitudes (see Figure 3.2). The biggest gaps in perceptions relate to fairness and flexibility.
Fig 3.2: Working Culture – Not-for-profit sector experience working with business
Survey question: We find when working with businesses that:
Source: Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, Survey of NFP organisations 2008. Note: The response categories ‘strongly agree’/‘agree’ and ‘strongly disagree’/’disagree’ are combined in this graph
Workshop participants, including former business executives and employees who now work in senior roles in not-for-profit organisations, reinforced the view that for business community partnerships to become more integrative (See Figure 2.1), business needs to be more flexible, fair and responsive in their relationships with NFP organisations.
A number of not-for-profit workshop participants, particularly those from smaller and place-based (local) organisations, perceive that NFP organisations are seen by some larger organisations as ‘junior’ partners.
One workshop participant noted:
Business mostly thinks it has most to teach NFP organisations, that we are poorly led and administered, and would not know a balance sheet if we saw one — a bit much when our operating ratio is 4 per cent and that of most of our corporate partners is 8-11 per cent.
Based on our research, it appears the longer a corporation has been involved in NFP partnerships, the more even the level of mutual respect and ‘power balance’ between the NFP and the corporation.
It is true also that many small to medium NFPs are managed in a similar way to small and medium enterprises (SMEs), who can also view their relationships with larger corporations as ‘junior’ to a bigger, ‘senior’ entity.
A central characteristic of good transactional and integrative corporate/community partnerships is a determination for each party to understand the operations of the other, including culture.
The need to strengthen understanding between NFP organisations and business was a common theme in all consultations for this report.
Looking for common ground
It is common for not-for-profit organisations to identify businesses that have the resources and motivation to address relevant social or environmental problems, and approach them as potential partners.
Most not-for-profit organisations that completed the Centre’s survey indicated NFP organisations and businesses (and especially larger corporations), often sought a ‘sweet spot’ with each other — an area of activity or commonality where the interests of the corporation and the interests of the NFP intersect. Other studies (including the Centre’s 2007 report) indicate this is an objective that is clearly shared by companies.
Sometimes finding such an intersection can be counter intuitive to the historical suspicion that some NFP organisations have of companies, and vice-versa, challenging traditional ideology or entrenched views.
However, seeking an intersection of common interest was identified by many NFP organisations as the necessary foundation of good corporate/community partnerships.
Box 3.2 provides an example of a smaller NFP and its success working with businesses with a common interest in technology-enablement.
CASE STUDY — AUSTRALIAN SENIORS COMPUTER CLUBS ASSOCIATION
The Australian Seniors Computer Clubs Association, a national peak association, relies on support from companies such as Telstra and Microsoft to deliver activities that promote information technology for seniors.
Microsoft, through its own partnership with Donortec (a not-for-profit organisation that provides technical solutions to other not-for-profits) provides software for ASCCA’s activities, while Telstra provides grants and training material. The grants allow ASCCA to run training courses for their members, introducing them to new technology in ways that solve everyday problems.
As with electronic banking, technology enabling supports citizen well being as well as access to commercial services, and can limit pressure for regulatory intervention.
Source: Australian Seniors Computer Clubs Association 2008.
Within a partnership, NFP organisations can often assist design and implement altruistic yet practical programs that address the heart of an agreed problem more effectively than the business could do alone, and because government is not involved, or has not been successful in addressing or solving an issue.
There also appears to be a trend for partnerships to form between some previously antagonistic NFP organisations and business. If successful, such partnerships allow the NFP to use its expertise, once devoted to simply critiquing a business, to developing supportive programs within, and monitor compliance by, a business operating in an area of NFP concern.
An increasing number of NFP organisations see how collaboration with business can be helpful — and in some cases essential — to achieving their objectives.
In turn business, through increased proximity and seeking common ground with NFP organisations, can break down negative stereotypes of corporations and garner reputational benefits. In industries that attract negative community sentiment, this can be a useful way of differentiating a business from its competitors.
CASE STUDY — WORLD WILDLIFE FUND AND INTEGRATED TREE CROPPING LTD
Partnerships between entities that are traditionally seen as opposed to each other may be mutually beneficial. For example, Integrated Tree Cropping Ltd is one of Australia's largest hardwood plantation forestry managers and timber processors — on initial inspection an unlikely partner for the environmental NFP, World Wildlife Fund.
Nevertheless, World Wildlife Fund Australia and Integrated Tree Cropping Ltd partner to encourage organisations to support forest and plantation management through responsible choice of timber and paper products (for example, through the Forest Stewardship Council). Partnerships like this enable both parties to overcome common misunderstandings and work together on common areas of interest.
NFP organisations with public credibility potentially have the ability to cause damage to corporate brands and reputation. Companies — like Integrated Tree Cropping Ltd — understand that it is beneficial to its business to engage with NFP organisations to resolve issues and work together to achieve mutual interests.
Source: World Wildlife Fund Australia 2008; Integrated Tree Cropping Limited 2008.
Establishment of ‘common ground’, mutual understanding and common goals in moving corporate/community partnerships toward the integrative stage is discussed further in Chapter 4 — Determinants of success.
Business motivations
As noted in the previous section, there is often an intersection between the interests of not-for-profit organisations and of corporations, and corporations too often seek this crossover.
For instance, corporations such as resource companies operating in rural locations engage in partnerships with the local community with the explicit intention of making the locations more liveable to attract employees to the operation, or to reduce tensions caused by disruption and any unwelcome impact.
A consequence or outcome of such community investment is creation also of social capital and infrastructure, though this may not be the corporation’s primary goal.
NFP organisations in our research agreed that such motivations do not undermine a partnership, as long as the outcomes desired by the business are understood by the NFP organisation.
Also, business motivations for engaging in relationships with the NFP sector are becoming more complex.
As noted in reference to large companies, sponsorship and community investment is now more intimately intertwined with the core strategies of the business, and thus are held to more rigorous cost-benefit and reputation evaluations.
According to one NFP organisation participating in our research:
Corporates are less interested in project sponsorship and more inclined to support the achievement of social outcomes.
NFP organisations also see that corporations are more focused on reputation and community licence to operate when assessing partnerships with them.
While corporations are seeking mutual NFP-business benefits via their corporate community investment, our research suggests some remain unsure about where they can effectively, ethically and practically focus their corporate community investment.
Indeed, with the guidance of proactive NFP organisations, an increasing number of corporations are looking to NFP partners to help clarify particular needs to be addressed, as well as providing effective delivery mechanisms for this investment.
But while there is demand in the corporate sector for appropriate community investment opportunities with NFP organisations, there remains uncertainty in some NFP organisations about which individual corporations are most appropriate for community investment partnerships, and how to access them.
Some NFP organisations noted the amount of initial work and time that needs to be allocated by both parties at commencement of partnerships to understand the operational drivers and realities within each entity. This is seen as critical to maximise cooperation and limit misunderstandings.
Workshop participants in general felt that a better understanding between not-for-profit organisations and larger corporate partners in particular would be of immense value to each partner in a corporate community investment relationship.
This is not about being warm and fuzzy, but I think if we non-profits and the relationship manager from the company can get together with the CEO in particular and agree what we have in common, our differences melt away easier. This is just good management practice, which no one can argue with I would suspect.
Operating overheads
It is well documented that a bias exists in awarding funding toward not-for-profit organisations that budget for and report low overhead and administrative costs.
Some US authors have highlighted the negative aspects of this practice and suggest that while under-reporting overheads will allow a NFP organisation to appear cost efficient, in the long-term it will result in internal inefficiency in the sector (Frederick &Rooney 2007; Pollack et al. 2004).
During our qualitative research, participant NFP organisations reported pressure in some partnerships when corporations want the NFP to deliver complex services and outcomes at less cost, using the previous year as a benchmark.
The issue with this is that the previous year cost may have been:
- unrealistic — the NFP may have been under pressure from limited funding sources to deliver a service at less than the quoted cost, simply to obtain funding to continue
- realistic the previous year, but unrealistic in other years — due to market demand, success breeding more demand, or funding reductions presenting new cost pressures
- overall costs — like those in business — have risen. But unlike themselves, governments and some businesses expect NFP organisations to absorb inflation increases.
The way these challenges are addressed can influence the success and longevity of a corporation’s relationship with an NFP.
While there is little data on the issue of under-reporting in Australia, it is said to exist and with negative consequences. Accordingly we suggest that this issue needs to be investigated further in the Australian context.
Reputation
Reputation is highly important to not-for-profit organisations, as well as a driver for community investment by corporations. Some NFP brands and reputations are among the strongest in Australia.
One NFP leader in our research said: ‘Many corporates wrongly assume they come to the NGO with more to contribute to the relationship, yet in many cases, big brands like [ours] have greater brand equity, reputation, profile etc than the corporate’.
It is not surprising that NFPs with strong brands and established reputations in the community are themselves guarded about retaining their operational and fundraising value and appeal when choosing their corporate partners.
Figure 3.3 illustrates the significance of reputation issues for NFP organisations when working within a community business partnership. The results indicate also that NFP organisations rarely have issues around agreement with their corporate partners about reputation, advocacy, ‘incorporation’, brand usage, recognition or risk management.
Fig 3.3: Reputation and policy issues
Survey question: We find when working with business that we rarely have issues around agreement on:
Source: Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, Survey of NFP organisations 2008. Note: The response categories ‘strongly agree’/‘agree’ and ‘strongly disagree’/’disagree’ are combined in this graph.
The Centre’s 2007 report on corporate community investment in Australia concluded that companies also place considerable emphasis on assessing the reputation of potential community partners. An issue closely related to the question of shared values is discussed in Section 3.2.
Organisational reputation is also a consideration for many NFPs when they contemplate a corporate partnership.
One NFP representative stated:
We do have a list of companies that our governance group has determined we cannot and should not partner with because of their ethical and reputational standing.
Another NFP senior executive stated:
We have a reputation and a brand that is important to us, and we will not compromise that if we believe a partnership with a corporation will not enhance our reputation, our brand and what we do.
Also, various constituents within individual NFP organisations will often have different values and attitudes to relationships and reputational impacts with businesses. This is a complex issue that many NFP leaders say they manage.
However, NFP organisations overwhelmingly welcome corporate support, and rejection of support on reputational grounds appears rare. This is reinforced by the previously discussed survey findings (see Figure 3.3) that indicate NFPs rarely have issues around agreement about reputation when working with business.
Despite a significant and growing trend towards NFP-business engagement, some not-for-profit organisations working to alleviate certain societal issues say they face difficulties attracting corporate partners.
These difficulties may arise from the lack of perceived reputational benefits for corporate partners associated with that issue, perceptions of corporations that the issue does not intersect with their business interests or strategy or what some research workshop participants termed as the ‘unglamorous nature’ of such issues.
In particular, NFP organisations in the mental health, alcohol and drugs rehabilitation, domestic violence, sexual abuse, correctional services rehabilitation and intellectual disabilities areas reported they find it difficult to attract corporate support. One NFP executive commented:
It is much easier to get corporate support for depression and stress — the softer end of mental health — rather than schizophrenia.
While this is not universal, and NFP organisations such as Mission Australia, Anglicare, The Smith Family and St Vincent de Paul Society have numerous, robust corporate community partnerships, some smaller NFP organisations in the human services area say they struggle in their relationships with business partners.
Not-for-profit organisations in the arts sector appear to have mixed success, although significant engagement exists where there are hospitality and entertainment opportunities with high profile entities.
Community recreation organisations also provide marketing opportunities, particularly those involving children in communities. Pressure on business to limit their environmental impact, and employee concerns about climate change have made it easier for environmental NFP organisations to attract corporate interest.
Not surprisingly, some NFP organisations reported the current focus of corporations on the environment has made it harder for them (particularly for some working in the human services sector) to attract funding.
Comments from workshop participants on corporate interest in environmental issues and human service partnerships included:
The environment is top of mind.
Many NFP organisations are affected by the ‘green distraction’.
Some NFPs cited childrens’ charities and animal causes as being ‘so attractive’ to business interests that they are now crowded fields, whereas issues such as senior citizen welfare or mental illness are disadvantaged.
It is not easy to get funding for programs working with a demographic where people do use drugs and there is higher rates of domestic violence.
It is very hard to sell prevention, for there are no numbers to measure the work that we do. This is very intangible, and does not translate into a return on money.
Arts partnerships
According to the survey underpinning significant analysis for this report, 10 per cent of NFP respondents indicated they were arts or cultural organisations. As noted in Section 1.6 of this report, of the 40 976 NFP organisations in Australia (ABS 2008) 20 per cent cited they were culture and recreation entities.
The arts sector has traditionally enjoyed a unique dynamic in partnerships with business. Up until the 1980s, large, national arts organisations such as Opera Australia, the Australian Ballet and some city-based gallery and theatre arts entities were major beneficiaries of corporate support.
As corporate community investment evolved from philanthropic to transactional, and more recently to integrative (see Chapter 2 of this report on trends in business/community relationships), larger arts organisations that had previously enjoyed good levels of corporate support, found themselves in a far more competitive environment.
Corporate focus on engaging more widely with the community, the competitive and cost pressures of a more open and competitive economy in Australia from the early to mid-1980s, and government policy, increased competition within the arts sector for corporate community involvement.
These developments also broadened the total market for corporate community investment. Arts organisations were only one item on the menu for corporate involvement and support.
Also, by the late 1990s, not only were there more national arts and cultural organisations, but there were also thousands of State-based and local entities seeking business corporate support.
Whereas in the 1960s and 1970s it may have sometimes been the case that major corporate arts sponsorships were the decision and deign of senior executives (and sometimes said also, of their spouses), in the 21st century, arts NFPs compete with NFPs that are seeking outcomes related directly to corporate strategy.
One NFP representative in the research workshops for this report stated:
In the past I think that the arts were perceived as a must have for the CEO and the Board of many large companies — a way of making an impression on the Prime Minister, Ministers and community leaders. Now, for most companies, the arts are only a nice to have when times are good. If you are an energy company today, your focus is not the Opera, but the environment. For the smartest companies, the arts may not be about winning projects or selling airfares or shampoo, but they are about engaging company staff, and saying to the world ‘we are a balanced citizen, and care about our business and the wider community’.
Our work with multi-national corporations, and with one of our sibling organisations in the US, the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship, suggests increasingly that corporate community investment in the arts is seen by many corporations as being beyond obvious intersections between a company’s interests in the community (for instance, a bank and financial literacy).
Support for and engagement with the arts is viewed by many company stakeholders (including employees) as a benchmark of the enterprise’s wider corporate citizenship, including being an entity that embraces total community wellbeing beyond sectional interest.
Companies in Australia such as SingTel Optus (partnership with the Australian Brandenburg Orchestra), Australia Post (partnership with Opera Australia), Emirates (Sydney Symphony Orchestra), Qantas (Australian Youth Orchestra), Audi (Sydney Theatre Company) and Bank SA (Art Gallery of South Australia) have corporate community partnerships with arts organisations because this is in concert with core business strategy to be a good corporate citizen.
Consultations for this research suggest some arts NFPs indicate that while there are elements of ‘partnership’ in their relationship with corporations, a significant component of their relationship is viewed by those companies in terms of ‘sponsorship and hospitality’ and at the early stages of a transactional relationship.
One workshop participant from an arts NFP stated:
The language is partnership. But what our corporate partners want is brand affiliation with us. Their stakeholders of importance are customers — especially corporate customers and media. We would both like to engage their employees, but this is harder. Our workplace is a stage or gallery. This can work, but in small groups only. And this seems too much work for our corporate partner.
Another comment from a NFP in the arts sector:
We are up against it with other not-for-profits. What we offer is teamwork, engagement, passion. I think we need to position this better. Our own general manager sees this. Our Board? No. Our partners? They see themselves as ‘sponsors’. Sponsors engage to sell. We engage to build, strengthen and enhance. I am not sure how we bridge the disconnect yet.
Research for this report focused primarily on engagement of larger arts NFPs with larger businesses.
Based on our consultations only, it appears that arts NFPs are curious indeed about how to better engage corporations, and to move if they can, from a ‘sponsorship’ mode to one of deeper corporate community partnership to relationships that are more integrative than transactional.
We note that considerable discourse about this has occurred through the lens of ‘funding.’ We suggest, however, that perhaps further analysis is necessary on how arts NFPs and business can engage across the wider platform of corporate community partnerships to forge integrative relationships.
CASE STUDY — BLACK SWAN THEATRE COMPANY’S BUSINESS ARTS PARTNERSHIPS
Black Swan Theatre Company in WA relies on government, business and individual support to present theatre productions, tour regional Western Australia and run workshops (including for school groups). The theatre company has a number of business partnerships with organisations such as Rio Tinto, RAC, Wesfarmers, Australia Post and Siemens among others. Major partnerships are typically formed on a three-year basis and include branding and marketing opportunities, access to the theatre company’s corporate and client networks, and includes staff engagement opportunities. For example, Rio Tinto, as a principal partner, has used the recent production of feminist farce The Female of the Species to create a social event for female Rio Tinto employees and women from the industry. At the event, Rio Tinto showcased the diversity of careers and opportunities for women at Rio Tinto, and announced a major policy change benefiting the Company’s female employees. Over 200 women attended the event, and a wait list of over 100 was established.
Source: Black Swan Theatre Company 2008.
Chapter summary
- Many NFP organisations posit that corporate community partnerships are able to generate outcomes and address issues that governments cannot; or that they can contribute significantly to outcomes that governments or NFPs cannot achieve alone
- Most not-for-profit organisations contributing to this report believe that the business sector forms close relationships with NFP organisations for public relations, reputation and marketing purposes, philanthropic motives, or because of business strategy
- Based on their experience working with corporations, most NFPs contributing to this report believe they are fairer, more flexible and respond more timely than businesses
- The longer a NFP organisation has been working in a partnership with a corporation, the better the perception of the power balance between the two entities
- Partnerships can be especially successful when partners seek a ‘sweet spot’ with each other — an area of activity or commonality where the interests of the corporation and the interests of the NFP intersect
- An increasing number of NFP organisations see how collaboration with business can be helpful — and in some cases essential — to achieving their objectives
- Reputation considerations of the NFP organisation and the corporation are key considerations for both parties when identifying and examining potential partners
- Arts NFPs are seeking more elements of transactional and integrative collaboration in their corporate community partnerships with business