Corporate Foundations – A Facade or a True Strategic Decision for Social Involvement? An Analysis of Corporative Foundations' Projects Based on Their Online Communication

Corporate Foundations – A Facade or a True Strategic Decision for Social Involvement?

An Analysis of Corporative Foundations’ Projects Based on Their Online Communication

Dr. Camelia Crisan

National University of Political Studies and Public Administration

Email: [email protected]

Tel: +40 213180881 / Fax:+40 213117148

Steliana Moraru

National University of Political Studies and Public Administration

Email: [email protected]

Tel: +40767013078

Abstract

Social pressure on companies is increasingly growing from stakeholder groups and from society as a whole. The

Green Revolution started by Rachel Carson in the 70s in the United States has been amplified by several additional

social movements, up to the point in which a new, more responsible attitude of companies towards communities,

consumers and society as a whole has become not only a voluntary decision, but an obligation (Crisan, 2008). While

for most companies such an attitude is still a bet, many enlightened firms have started playing a role in promoting the

transformation towards a new business model (de Woot, 2009). Companies that have adopted corporate social

responsibility (CSR) as a core value frequently define themselves as “corporate citizens” and view their social roles

accordingly. Our previous research in Romania has demonstrated that most companies are in fact adopting CSR as a

form of managerial technique, part of the managerial stage of learning CSR (Crisan, Reveiu and Andrusenco, 2011).

For this reason, we believe that companies set up corporate foundations – as a means of “doing good to doing well”, to

show their civic engagement. The question that our paper aims to answer is whether or not in Romania such responses

are based on a true commitment related to a company’s taking social responsibility values seriously, or simply a

façade for image and marketing purposes. As Starbuck and Nystrom (2006, 203) point out “Facades abound…Because

managers construct facades to deceive targeted people and institutions, facades mirror the norms and expectations

relevant to these targets…”

Our paper focuses first on the need of companies to produce facades. As Starbuck and Nystrom (2006, 202) assert

“managers of business organizations can and do benefit by appearing to conform to ideologies that their environments

prefer”. The same type of normative behaviour from companies is suggested by other authors Freeman, Harrison and

Wicks (2007), Clarke (1998/ 2004), Philips (2003) or Blair (1995/2004), though starting from the point of

view that corporations have a duty to society. The main producers of facades in a company are its top managers.

Facades are a way of promoting a certain image in front of the public and shareholders, and subsequently a way of

gaining financial benefits. Facades can be built in terms of work processes (e.g. some systems to ensure relevant

stakeholders that the managers care about their future), in terms of structures (structures that seem to be in fashion at

some point in time), and in terms of pronouncements (statements to customers) (Starbuck and Nystrom, 2006, 203).

Therefore, we assume that philanthropic engagements and civic duty display may be in the “wrong” hands, a mere

corporate “façade” unless they are implemented in a certain manner, which we will explain below.

Could corporate foundations be facades for other managerial purposes?

Several authors believe that “corporations can use their charitable efforts to improve their competitive context”

especially in the communities where they operate, thus pursuing a context focused strategy (Porter and Kramer, 2003,

31). Such endeavours need be made not only as cash donations, but also to contribute with resources that the company

has at hand, in order to help solving pressing matters and produce social benefits. In this way, corporations are

encouraged to pursue goals related to charitable giving which exceed their business areas. As a result, they may not be

deemed as solely interested by their charitable deductions which, in turn, can affect their image and reputation. “There

is no inherent contradiction between improving competitive context and making a sincere 1commitment to bettering

society” (Porter and Kramer, 2003, 59). This point of view deserves a little expansion. While for all corporations

channelling a part of their money through their philanthropic organizations is a means to an end, and they are sincere

in willing to contribute to the betterment of the society, for some this is an end in itself. And we refer here to fiscal

matters - the money companies donate to their charitable arm is exempted from taxation.

Smith (2003) argues that when companies join forces with their philanthropic arm, they develop strategies that, in the

end, provide a powerful competitive edge. The contributions a corporation can make for a good society is not only in

cash, but also in providing to philanthropic organizations with managerial skills, competent human resources and

marketing skills. Smith (2003, 163) offers examples of several corporations of interest for the topic addressed in the

1 Text emphasized to point out an idea of the authors

current paper, being the corporate foundation set out by AT&T which has pursued a Janus type strategy – with one

face towards supporting business goals and the other towards solving pressing matters of society. Authors have seen

many examples around the world where companies set out foundations or became engaged in philanthropy after the

point at which their image was seriously tarnished by events affecting their credibility (Bishop and Green, 2008, 179).

One of the famous cases of a “reputation comeback” and improving the economic situation of impoverished

individuals is that of Royal Dutch Shell, which after the incidents from Nigeria, created the Shell Foundation, and its

paramount endeavour is considered to be the Microfinance Trust for poor Africans. “Of course, Shell benefits from

this success. An increase in small and medium enterprises in Africa could improve supply chains for the company’s

African operations, making it easier to do business, which is good for long term profitability.” (Bishop and Green,

2008, 181).

The points of view presented above do not convey a definite answer – probably some actions or some corporate

foundations could be a façade for business interests. We believe that this is a possibility, especially in those cases

where we see projects or activities in which the sole beneficiary of the results is the corporation itself (its notoriety, its

image) or the corporative foundation.

A taxonomy allowing companies a more universal understanding of what could be their best approach to philanthropy

is proposed by Kasper and Fulton (2006), who believes that the principles for action for corporate foundations could

range between more independent and more integrated corporate business models and non-responsive to proactive in

terms of approach. Thus, the taxonomy includes the following typologies:

“The Good Citizen” is the situation wherein corporate foundations fund almost any proposal from the non-profit

sector, within financial limits, and without any connection to business goals.

In the case of “Leveraged Philanthropy” companies allow the use of their resources, but not necessarily for pursuing

strategic business goals. Special aid in case of emergency situations is one example of this type of philanthropy.

The third type described by Kasper and Fulton (2006) is the “Issue Driven Philanthropy”, wherein organizations have

a clear strategic approach on what issues they will tackle and what results they are expecting. In this respect, they are

using their core competencies, although the domain of intervention is not necessary the corporation’s area of activity.

The last category, the one in which authors deem the hardest to describe is the one of “Aligned Philanthropy”. This is

the one wherein the interests of the corporation intersect with the areas of investment for the foundations’ activities.

The top of this category is represented by “The Corporate Social Enterprise,” which is exceeding the borders of

business and entering the realm of socially responsible business strategy. It is the model presented above by the Shell

Foundation or by the Graemen Bank from Bangladesh.

The important fact about this taxonomy, as the authors remind us, is that there is not necessarily a receipt for success.

Simply put, the best option is usually situational – depending on the circumstances of each corporation. However, one

should take into account a few variables: economic realities, perception of trust in business, regulatory scrutiny, social

expectations related to the business role, and unfamiliar risks (Kasper and Fulton, 2006). Each of the categories

mentioned above could be described as closer or more distant to the idea of façade – mimicking the social interest of

the corporation, but being in reality a form of avoiding taxation or “green-washing”.

For this reason, in the opinion of the authors of this paper, one would need to take into account the impact the projects

of the corporate foundations produce, on the environment and on the society where the corporation is operating. We

are proposing a new taxonomy considering that philanthropy is only one arm of the corporate social responsibility

(Carroll and Buchholtz, 2006), but also one that has the idea of sustainable development in mind (Hopkins, 2007).

Companies in this model would be planning for a better, efficient and more profitable future.

As a result, whatever the term used to refer to CSR – be it corporate responsibility, social performance, corporate

citizenship or corporate governance – the responsibility of business has become central to the agendas of corporations,

governments, supranational organizations, civil society groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and

community-based organizations (CBOs) (Moreno and Capriotti, 2009). Moreover, as was noted above, a large number

of companies develop their own corporate foundations. The company-sponsored foundation often maintains close ties

with the donor company, but it is a separate, legal organization, sometimes with its own endowment, and is subject to

the same rules and regulations as other private foundations. Having a strategic approach to CSR means that

corporations have to embed it with their business strategy. These principles apply also to the corporate foundation and

their programs. By integrating the mission of the corporate foundation with its business strategy, a company can

become a source of opportunity, innovation, and derive competitive advantages. This means that CSR activities can

ultimately be much more than costs, constraints, or charitable deeds (Porter and Kramer, 2006, 78).

In this way, the actions of corporative foundations could be closer or further distanced from the idea of a façade by

taking into account the two criteria adapted after Kasper and Fulton (2006): (a) the foundation’s activity is, or not, in

line with the business’s objectives – e.g. a mobile phone company is affecting the health of people due to phones’

SAR emissions, so the corporate foundation invests in the area of health, (b) the corporate foundation is actively

investing in projects aimed at finding alternatives for business products / services and their effects, which are

potentially harming for society and/or environment versus those which are proactively promoting new business, new

opportunities of growth and wellbeing – e.g. a fast food chain is investing in projects related to organic farming or for

the education and development of local farm suppliers. In other words, in our opinion, a strategic approach of a

corporation’s foundation is closely linked to sustainable growth and / or with alleviating the negative effects of

activities undertaken by the mother company. To that end we would like to add another point, which is legitimized in

our view by the very idea of corporations having a social responsibility (c) how the results and/or impact of the

foundation’s activities affect the company’s direct stakeholders.

As a result, we have created a simple matrix, where the results of an analysis can be readily judged based on a Lickert

type scale (5 – very much, 4 – much, 3 - somewhat, 2 – little, 1- very little).

Table 1. Matrix for judging the façade potential of projects implemented by corporate foundations

Criteria/Scale

of fulfilling the

criteria

The activity / project is

in line with business’s

objectives.

Project is funded to find

alternatives to potential harmful

business‘s products / services.

The results and/or impact of the

project affect the company’s

direct stakeholders.

Project 1 X x X

Considering the above, our contention is that if a corporate foundation acts in a strategic manner, implementing with

integrity the company’s philanthropic vision, the involvement of the company in the society is true, or sincere.

Otherwise, corporation foundations are mere forms of building facades for better reputation. As a result, projects

scoring low in the above categories will place a certain foundation closer or further to it being a façade. A full line of

“very little” will mean that a foundation is only an acting façade for business interests, while a full “very much” line

would mean that a foundation possesses a strategic approach. In between, the matrix will have several degrees and

only an interpretation taking into account the reality of each organization will allow for a clear diagnosis. Our

contention is that in terms of evaluating the discrepancies between what a company and its philanthropic arm are

saying and doing, this is a consistent starting point.

Online communication of corporate foundations

Presently, online communication is part of everyday life, motivating companies, governments, institutions and people

to become more and more interested in the impact and the role of this type of communication and interaction.

Organizations use instruments such as websites, blogs, forums, social media, instant messaging, chat rooms,

applications etc., in order to communicate about their products and activities and to receive direct feedback from their

stakeholders. For the digital natives,2 online communication is a natural way to develop interpersonal relations and

their network. The rise of social media has offered an instrument that instantly connects people, places, ideas,

concepts, and products; and empowers each person to express and interact directly. Online communication has a

higher impact on the way consumer communication change and influenced the marketplace, enabling both people and

companies to directly address each other, and to magnify the role of the consumer in addressing the company. As

stated in annual report The State of Social Media (2007), technology is redefining the role of the citizen – endowing

the individual with more responsibility and command over how he or she consumes information – and that new role is

only beginning to be understood.

When we talk about corporate social responsibility (CSR), the communication absorbs the social branding generated

in the social media. Bhattacharya and Sen (2001) suggest that communicating about CSR activities does not imply a

positive approach towards the company. But the same authors (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004) argue that CSR leads to

customer loyalty and positive post-purchase outcomes. Moreover, communication about CSR builds brand equity

(Hoeffler and Keller, 2002) and helps organisations to be perceived more positively and with greater trust by

stakeholders (Swaen and Vanhamme, 2004, cited by Jahdi and Acikdilli, 2009). The new digital environments

(social networks, blogs, video platforms, micro-blogging, geolocation in mobile marketing, etc.) favor the

business orientation based on relations (the client-first philosophy), the generation of social branding, the

segmentation and personalization of messages, the evangelization of the brand through subscription and

viral marketing, and the launching of an experiential marketing that generates customer engagement (Ros-

Diego and Castello-Martinez, 2012).

The theme of CSR is an issue that has been debated within companies for several years and it was initially used as a

good argument of marketing in corporate communications and brand values (Benavides, 2010). On the other hand,

Ros-Diego, V. and Castello-Martinez, A. (2012), affirm that companies are becoming aware of the importance of

including the social media in their communication strategies in order to get closer to their consumers and increase

their visibility on the Internet. For many companies, the Internet has become the best way to personalize their

message, to interact with the target audience, and to meet the expectations of their customers. The importance of the

Internet has grown to such extent that online actions constitute an essential part in the communication strategy of the

brand.

2 Digital natives – millennials (born between 1978-1993) who since birth have been exposed to the Internet and to a constant

stream of digital technologies

But the importance of being present online does not consist only in brand communication; it is also an important tool

in addressing corporate social responsibility programs. Far more than being a responsible company, a corporation has

to communicate its approach to stakeholders, and online communication is a facilitator for making any initiative

known worldwide. In the case of corporate foundations, online communication is even more of an asset in gaining

legitimacy and the confidence of the public (Moreno and Capriotti, 2009). Yet despite the potential of the online

communications for the corporate foundations, very few studies have specifically considered the importance of

corporate web sites for the communication of CSR issues (Moreno and Capriotti, 2009). An organization needs to

highlight responsible actions in its communication, not only to generate a positive return for the brand, but also to

disseminate good practices and contribute to the promotion of CSR.

Online communication of Romanian corporate foundations

According to Mediascope Europe (2012), 7.2 million Romanians are using the internet and 93% of them have used a

personal or professional social media site. At the same time, 51% of Romanian internet users believe that the way a

brand communicates online is important. Romanian NGOs use social media for promoting their projects and activities,

with organizations like Save the Children having 298.772 fans and UNICEF Romania having 102.305 fans on

Facebook.

Also, in Romania, the CSR approach has gained recognition at a national level and many corporations learn how to get

involved in the community and have a consolidated strategy regarding their social programs. There are several

corporations that implement their CSR activity through corporate foundations. Most of them have their own websites

and social media channels, where the organizations state their mission, activities and grant making processes. Some

publish reports about the previous years’ activities and have a dedicated page about the latest news, although not all

have updated information about their activities. Online communication is also used as a tool for engaging and

informing stakeholders, considering the numbers above where more than one third of Romania’s population uses the

internet.

Our research objective for this paper was to determine whether the activities / projects implemented by the corporate

foundations are, in fact, supporting the strategic endeavours of their parent companies or if they are a mere façade with

little or no connection to the core business.

Our methodological approach consisted of analysing the projects implemented by the corporate foundations as they

have been presented in the online communications of corporate foundations, (Fieseler, Fleck and Meckel, 2010, Ros-

Diego and Castelló-Martínez, 2012).

Phases of the research:

1. Analysing the online communication of corporate foundations in quantity terms;

2. Conducting a content analysis, comparing the objectives stated by the corporations and their philanthropic

arms;

3. Identifying all activities and projects presented online by the corporate foundations;

4. Describing in key terms each of them;

5. Evaluating each one according to the matrix presented in Table 1.

The target group of our research has been foundations with a presence of at least 5 years in Romania, while the time

frame for the programs’ and projects’ analysis stretched from 2010 to 2013. As a result, we have focused on:

Vodafone Foundation, Sensiblu Foundation and Ronald McDonald Foundation.

1. The Vodafone Foundation

Initially known as the Sirois Foundation (established in 1998), the Vodafone Romania Foundation received its

current name in 2005, being the first Romanian corporate foundation. Vodafone Foundation was involved in over 300

social programs, together with its nongovernmental partners and invested over 5 million euros in different activities.

Vodafone Foundation is part of Vodafone Group Foundation, with 24 branches worldwide. Its financial resources are

divided into an annual budget provided by Vodafone Romania and the annual giving of Vodafone Group Foundation.

Moreover, Vodafone has established an Open Fund, encouraging employees to donate for the charity activities of the

Foundation. As a company, Vodafone’s operational objectives are: drive operational performance, support and invest

in innovation and creativity, develop local business environment, offer the best communication solutions for the

mobile communication consumer, offer community support.

2. Sensiblu Foundation

The Sensiblu Foundation was established in 2002, being an A&D Pharma initiative. The foundation was involved in

supporting women and children, victims of domestic violence, implementing awareness campaigns, programs and

public events. A&D Pharma offers financial support in addition to donation campaigns ran by the foundation (2 %

campaign or individual donations). A&D Pharma’s strategic objectives are: offer a unique and full range of services

on the distribution, marketing, sales, pharmaceutical retail and medical services segments, health care and education,

preventing domestic violence and promoting human rights, social involvement towards company’s employees.

3. Ronald McDonald Children’s Charities of Romania (RMCC)

This is a corporate foundation established in 1998, by McDonald’s Romania, aiming to help disadvantaged children in

Romania. The Foundation works towards implementing campaigns and programs helping orphanages, children’

hospitals and charities. Financial support comes entirely from McDonalds Romania. Additionally, the Foundation runs

different fund-raising campaigns. McDonald's corporate objectives are: to offer the best customer experience, stay

committed to employees, operate the business ethically, give back to community, grow the business profitably .

Quantity remarks

Vodafone Foundation has its own website www.fundatia-vodafone.ro and Facebook brand page

http://www.facebook.com/FundatiaVodafone, with more 16,200 likes and 200 people talking about it. The page was

created in May, 2010. According to facebrands.ro, the Foundation’s Facebook page ranks number l1804, out of 20713

monitored Romanian pages. In the non-profit category, they rank 14 out of 395. The Foundation also provides

information about their activity on their own Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/fundatiavodafone. The

average number of views is 150 per video. Vodafone Foundation provides a full activity report (2011) on their

website.

Sensiblu Foundation has its own site http://www.fundatiasensiblu.ro/, Facebook brand page

http://www.facebook.com/Fundatia.Sensiblu.pagina.prieteni?fref=ts (founded in June, 2012- 4,646 likes and 27

people talking about this, most popular group age is 25-34 years old, most popular city is Bucharest). The foundation

communicates from time to time on their Twitter account https://twitter.com/FundatiaSSB, with 200 followers and

provides blog posts: http://www.fundatiasensiblu.ro/RO_Blog.html (last post 2010). The Foundation has a Youtube

channel, established in 2011, providing 2 videos, with 546 viewers. On their website, Sensiblu Foundation provides

activity reports (the most recent from 2008).

RMCC does not have a site, but it has a page incorporated in the company’s site http://mcdonalds.ro/pages/lumea-

mcdonalds/caritate. Also, there is no local Facebook page, only the global Facebook page

http://www.facebook.com/rmhcglobal?fref=ts. A recent activity report (2012) is available.

As we can determine from studying their online presence, these foundations do acknowledge the importance of

communicating their activities, but the rate of user engagement is medium to low. Studying the posts and information

provided, these foundations write mainly about their own initiatives and their partners. They also provide links to

different publications and articles about their activities. While Sensiblu Foundation provides only own photos,

Vodafone Foundation allows users to tag the Foundation in different photos. Moreover, Vodafone Foundation

provides on the Facebook page applications for their main projects: Work as volunteer national program,

Mobile4Good, Build4Tomorrow, BigBuild.

Regarding activity reports, Ronald McDonald has the most recent activity report, but it is available only on their

communication agency page. Sensiblu Foundation has four activity reports (2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008) available on

their website. Vodafone Foundation provides activity reports for 2011, offering also exhaustive information about

their main activity areas on their web page.

In terms of projects implemented by each foundation, we have found references to roughly 28 projects and activities

implemented by Vodafone Foundation, 22 implemented by Sensiblu Foundation and 9 implemented by RMCC.

Quality remarks

We have compared the strategic objectives of the company Vodafone and Vodafone Foundation, and a content

analysis of the objectives of both organizations indicates an overlap between one objective of the company, i.e. to

offer community support and all objectives assumed by the Foundation, namely to offer support against school

dropout, for sporting competitions, and for the social integration of people with special needs and elderly. In the case

of Sensiblu Foundation the content analysis reveals an overlap between the first and second objective of the

Foundation: contribute to the diminishing domestic violence effects and domestic violence prevention and support

domestic violence’s victims through social, psychological, legal counselling, meals, shelter, clothing, medicine, help

in finding a workplace with the third and fourth objective of the founder company A&D Pharma: preventing domestic

violence and promoting human rights and Health care and education. In the case of RMCC and the company

McDonalds there are overlaps between all the foundation’s objective and at least one company objective, namely: give

back to community.

An analysis of the projects / activities implemented by each foundation and presented online is displayed below:

Table 2. Vodafone Foundation

Criteria/Scale of fulfilling the criteria The activity /

project is in line

with business’s

objectives.

Project is funded to

find alternatives to

potential harmful

business‘s products /

services.

The results and/or

impact of the project

affect the company’s

direct stakeholders.

2010

Building social homes for disadvantaged

people and victims of the natural disasters –

partnership with Habitat for Romania

(partnership started in 2008)

4 1 2

Building a social home for young people 3 1 2

with disabilities – partnership with Habitat

for Romania and Motivation Foundation

Special Olympics Regional Games –

partnership with Special Olympic Romania

and “For you” Foundation

3 5 5

Work as volunteer – employees’ national

program – partnership with national NGOs

5 5 5

2011

Work as volunteer - employees’ national

program- partnership with national NGOs

5 5 5

Chance For Life scholarship - partnership

with Chance for Life Foundation – stationary

for 2 children with low income parents

3 1 1

The Sulina – Vodafone Scholarship –

partnership with Chance for Life Foundation

– stationary for 2 children with low income

parents

3 1 1

Money donation for two day centres (elderly

people) – partnership with Edelweiss

Foundation

3 1 3

SOS the Toy Car (employees donate toys) –

partnership with SOS Children Villages

5 1 3

“Getting ready to grow up”(a project to

aimed at stopping school dropout) –

partnership with Saint Dimitrie Foundation

3 1 2

Family abandon prevention programs –

partnership with Bethany Foundation, SOS

Children Villages, Saint Stelian Association,

Touched Association

4 1 2

Programs for children with special needs –

partnership with Chance for Life, the

Motivation Foundation, “We Vanquish

Autism” Association

3 1 2

Sport programs for people with disabilities –

partnership with Special Olympics Romania

3 5 5

“Don’t ignore me” - fundraising for building

the first excellence centre in curing

children’s cancer in Romania – partnership

with Save Lives Association

5 5 5

Swimming annual competition – partnership

with Motivation Foundation

1 5 3

Donation (600 000 €) for building the First

Palliative centre with clinical and

educational profile, Bucharest –partnership

with Hospice Hope House ( the partnership

started in 2006 )

5 5 5

Launching the Treatment and Assistance

Centre – partnership with Muscular

Dystrophy Association ( 34 000 € donation

and 100 Vodafone volunteers involved)

5 5 5

Santa Claus is you – internal volunteering 5 3 3

program

2012

Mobile for Good launch – national program

using mobile communication and apps for

sorting our social issues

5 5 5

Work as Volunteer – employees’ national

program – partnership with national NGOs

5 5 5

Build4Tomorrow – partnership with Charity

Works Association and Diaconia

International Aid Association

4 1 2

Big Build – partnership with Habitat for

Humanity Romania

4 1 2

Office supplies donation for Saint Dimitrie

Foundation, Saint Stelian Association and

Mia’s Children

1 1 2

SMS fundraising campaign to build a new

flank for the Intensive Therapy Department

for new-born children (Marie Curie Hospital,

Bucharest) –partnership with Children’s

Heart Association

5 5 5

Swimming annual competition – partnership

with Motivation Foundation

1 5 3

Charitable Christmas show – partnership

with Radio Romania Foundation

1 1 1

2013

Work as Volunteer – employees’ national

program – partnership with national NGOs

5 5 5

20 000 € donation for Real Madrid

Foundation – opening a football school in

Bucharest (prevention of school dropout)

3 4 2

Average scores 3,64 3,03 3,25

We have ranked the middle section as 5 for all the health projects, considering that there already exists a series of

respectable institutions which are linking mobile phone usage with some forms of cancer (National Cancer Institute,

2012; Cancer Research UK, 2013). At the same time, we have considered sport competitions as a pro-active means of

staying healthy, thus ranking with 5 all such events / projects. As regards the impact, we have considered very little

impact for those activities or projects where demonstrably the number of people who benefited the results of the

project was under 5.

Table 3. Sensiblu Foundation

Criteria/Scale of fulfilling the criteria The activity /

project is in line

with business’s

objectives.

Project is funded to

find alternatives to

potential harmful

business’s products /

services.

The results and/or

impact of the project

affect the company’s

direct stakeholders.

2010

V-Days – 16 days of activism against domestic

violence ( 7th edition)

5 1 4

NGOs trainings (communication and fundraising) 5 1 2

Social campaign against women violence and

launch of www.nuepoveste.ro

5 1 4

Parenting workshops – partnership with Tea

House and Laura Ivan, psychologist

5 1 2

Workshop – The trauma effects upon human

mind: theory in practice – with the support of His

Excellency Mark Gitenstein, US Ambassador in

Romania, and his wife, Libby Gitenstein and in

partnership with Inocenti Foundation

5 1 2

Be Santa Claus- partnership with "Luminita"

Center and Future for Romanian Children

Foundation

5 1 3

Blu Home- hosting and counselling program for

women and children victims of domestic violence

( program started in 2002)

5 1 4

2011

V-Days Campaign ( with a special focus on

young people -8th edition)

5 1 4

Social campaign against women violence -

partnership with Avon Romania

5 1 4

2 % fundraising campaign 1 1 1

Blu Home- hosting and counselling program for

women and children victims of domestic violence

( program started in 2002)

5 1 4

2012

V-Days Campaign – partnership with Peace

Corps Romania and IREX

Foundation/Biblionet ( 9th edition)

5 1 4

Home peace, world peace campaign –

partnership with Gender Equality and

Development Peace Corp Committee Romania

and IREX Foundation/ Biblionet

4 1 5

Say NO to domestic violence campaign 5 1 4

Series of workshops – Teenager’s emotional

abuse in family – partnership with Avon

Foundation

5 1 2

2 % fundraising campaign 1 1 1

Human Rights internship program- partnership

with Filia Centre and Euro-regional Centre for

Public Initiatives

5 1 1

Blu Home- hosting and counselling program for

women and children victims of domestic violence

5 1 4

( program started in 2002)

2013

V-Day campaign results ( essay contest for young

people)

5 1 4

A present for 8 March- No slap – campaign

against women violence

5 1 4

2 % fundraising campaign 1 1 1

Blu Home- hosting and counseling program for

women and children victims of domestic violence

( program started in 2002)

5 1 4

Average scores 4,4 1 3,09

The ranks received by the Sensiblu Foundation in column 2 have to do with the fact that the foundation’s projects are

not contributing to alleviating the core effects of the A&D Pharma’s business – distribution of medicines. In our view

there are plenty options one could take into account in order to answer better to the society’s needs, considering for

example that 60% of parents administer medicines to their children without having the doctor’s recommendation

(ARPIM, 2012). As regards the impact, we have considered very little impact for those activities / projects where

demonstrably the number of people who benefited the results of the project was under 5.

Table 4. Ronald McDonald Children’s Charities of Romania

Criteria/Scale of fulfilling the

criteria

The activity /

project is in line

with business’s

objectives.

Project is funded to find

alternatives to potential

harmful business’s

‘products / services.

The results and/or impact

of the project affect the

company’s direct

stakeholders.

2010

15 years in Romania information

campaign

1 1 1

Happy McDay –I want to do good –

annual fundraising campaign

(donating a percentage towards other

programs)

5 1 3

Ronald McDonald houses, Timisoara

(founded in 2008) and Bucharest

(founded in 2003)- on-going

program

5 1 4

2011

Money donation for building an

oncology-homology section for

children at County Hospital, Targu

Mures

5 5 5

McHappy Day- I want to do good–

annual fundraising campaign

5 1 3

Ronald McDonald houses,

Timisoara (founded in 2008) and

Bucharest (founded in 2003)- on-

going program

5 1 4

2012

I want to do well! - fundraising

campaign to help improve hospital

conditions from Grigore

Alexandrescu Hospital, Bucharest

5 5 5

Building an elevator for children

haematology section, Louis Turcanu

Hospital, Timisoara

5 4 5

Ronald McDonald houses, Timisoara

(started in 2008) and Bucharest

(started in 2003)- on-going program

5 1 4

Average scores 4,5 2,2 3,7

We have ranked all health related initiatives of this organization with 5, considering existing research

which puts a direct link between fast food consumption and the risk of obesity in children (Bowman et

al., 2003) or research that states that McDonald’s food has more calories compared with other fast food

chains, thus being less healthy (Chandon and Wansink, 2007). As before, we have considered very little

impact for those activities / projects where demonstrably the number of people who benefited the results of the

project was under 5.

Conclusions and discussions

The analysed corporations are presenting most of their projects online. Some projects are better described than

others, with details related to objectives and costs, while others are mentioned only briefly. In most cases the actual

results and impact data are missing. The number of fans on social media is low compared with other NGOs, which

have no corporate arms to rely on for getting funds.

We see a mixed picture when we analyse how strategic or how close to a façade are the actions of corporate

foundations. The closest to a façade are those activities reported by the organizations which are related to

information campaigns about their own activities and charitable concerts. We have also considered façade-like

approaches those small interventions affecting 2 or 3 individuals.

We notice a strong to very strong relationships between business objectives and objectives set out by corporate

foundations in the case of Sensiblu and RMCC, while Vodafone Foundation shows a moderate compliance between

the business and foundation’s objective. We believe that such situation could change if Vodafone Foundation

would focus more on bridging the community support it offers with technology solutions in an innovative way.

In the case of Vodafone Foundation, there is satisfactory leverage offered by the foundation’s activities for the

potential damaging activities of the mother corporation. We cannot state the same in the case of Sensiblu

Foundation. Although it is affecting, especially through the information campaigns, a large number of potential

victims of domestic violence, we fail to see a connection to the core business of A&D Pharma and its effect on the

society. We believe that issues like self-medication, selling antibiotics over the counter without a prescription,

offering medicines to children by irresponsible parents are issues that could concern in a more legitimate way the

Foundation’s activity. The same principle could be applied to RMCC, where we see investments in community

housing and health projects, however; the health projects are not directly linked with the most pressing issue related

to the mother company – the effect fast food has on obesity.

As a result, we may conclude that with a few exceptions, by analysing the online portfolio of projects / activities of

our research subjects, they are far from being facades for the good intentions stated by their mother corporations.

Limitations of the research

We believe that our analysis would have been more compelling if more information would have been

made available online by our research subjects in domains such as: annual turnover, value of each project,

clearly measured impact data. At the same time, it would have been useful to put into connection the

annual turnover of the corporate arms of the foundations with their operating budgets. It would have

helped us understand if companies appreciate the impact their philanthropic activities are making on

society, and if they are modifying their donation strategies accordingly. Under these circumstances, we

could be in a better position to re-affirm that if the philanthropy and business objectives are relying on

each other’s results, we are building a better and more affluent society.

Key words: Corporate social responsibility, strategic philanthropy, corporate foundations, online communication.

Reference list:

1. ARPIM (Romanian Association of International Drug Producers). 2012. Despre automedicatie, available at

http://www.arpim.ro/medicamentelenusuntbomboane/despre-automedicatie, viewed on May 9th, 2013.

2. Bhattacharya, C.B. and S. Sen. 2001. Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions

to Corporate Social Responsibility, in Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 225-243.

3. Bhattacharya, C.B. and S. Sen. 2004. Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why, and How Consumers

Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives, in California Management Review, Vol. 47, No 1, pp. 9-24.

4. Bishop, M. şi M. Green. 2008. Philatrocapitalism. How the Rich Can Save the World and Why We Should Let

Them. London: A&C Black.

5. Blair, M.M. [1995]2004. Ownership and Control: Rethinking Corporate Governance for the Twenty-First

Century în Theories of Corporate Governance: The Theoretical Foundations (Clarke, T. ed.). London:

Routhlege, pp. 174–189.

6. Bonk, K., E. Tynes, H. Griggs and P.Sparks. 2008. Strategic Communications for Nonprofits, A Step-by-Step

Guide to Working with the Media, 2nd edition, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Nonprofit.

7. Bowman, S.A., S. L. Gortmaker, C. B. Ebbeling, M. A. Pereira and D. S. Ludwig. 2003. Effects of Fast-Food

Consumption on Energy Intake and Diet Quality Among Children in a National Household Survey, available

at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/1/112.abstract, viewed on May 9th, 2013.

8. Cancer research UK. 2013. Mobile phones and cancer, available at http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-

info/healthyliving/cancercontroversies/mobilephones/mobile-phones-and-cancer, viewed on May 9th, 2013.

9. Carroll, A.B. şi A. K. Buchholtz. 2006. Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management. 6th Ed.

Mason: Thompson/South Western.

10. Chandon, P. and B. Wansink. 2007. The Biasing Health Halos of Fast-Food Restaurant Health Claims: Lower

Calories Estimates and Higher Side-Dish Consumption Intentions, available at

http://cocoon.bluezzoon.com/Cocoon/Downloads/Slides/Study_Materials/Chandon_2007_Health_Halos.pdf,

viewed on May 9th, 2013.

11. Clarke, T.[1998] 2004. The Stakeholder Corporation: A Business Philosophy for the Information Age în

Theories of Corporate Governance: The Theoretical Foundations (Clarke, T. ed.). London: Routhlege, pp.

189–203.

12. Crişan, C., A. Reveiu and M. Andruşenco. 2011. Un tablou sinoptic al RSC in Romania. Top 100 cele mai

mari companii – 2009, in Responsabilitatea sociala corporativa de la relații publice la dezvoltarea durabilă

(Bortun, D., eds.). București: Tritonic, pp. 289-302.

13. Crișan, C. 2008. Responsabilitatea ca obligație. Rolul mișcărilor de stânga și a subculturii creative în normarea

dimensiunii sociale a responsabilității corporatiste in Cultural Creatives – cercetari privind evoluția valorilor

în societatea romanească (co-author). București: comunicare.ro.

14. De Woot, P. 2009. Should Prometheus Be Bound? Corporate Global Responsibility. New York: Pelgrave

Macmillan.

15. Dolnicar, S. and A. Pomering. 2007. Consumer response to corporate social responsibility initiatives: an

investigation of two necessary awareness states, in Proceedings of the Australian and New Zeealand

Marketing Academy Conference (Thyne, M., K. R.. Deans and J. Gnoth eds.). Dunedin, New Zealand:

Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. pp. 2825-2831.

16. Fieseler, C., F. Matthes and M. Meckel. 2010. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Blogosphere in Journal

of Business Ethics, 91 (4), pp 599-614.

17. Freeman, E.R., J.S. Harrison şi A.C. Wicks. 2007. Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Relation and

Success. USA: Caravan Books Project.

18. Hoeffler, S. and K.L., Keller. 2002. Building Brand Equity through Corporate Societal Marketing, in Journal

of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 21, No 1, pp. 78-89.

19. Hopkins, M. 2007. Corporate Social Responsibility & International Development. Is Business The Solution.

London: Earthscan.

20. Jahdi, K. and G. Acikdilli. 2009. Marketing Communications and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR):

Marriage of Convenience or Shotgun Wedding?, in Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 88, Issue 1, pp. 103-

113.

21. Kanter, B. and A. Fine. 2010. Networked profit, connecting with social media to drive change, San Francisco:

Jossey Bass a Willley Imprint.

22. Kasper, G. and K. Fulton. 2006. The Future of Corporate Phlanthropy: A Framework for Understanding Your

Options, available at http://www.monitorinstitute.com/downloads/what-we-think/corporate-

philanthropy/Future_of_Corporate_Philanthropy.pdf, viewed on May 9th, 2013.

23. Mediascope Europe. 2012. Results for Romania with European Highlights, available at

http://www.slideshare.net/titusk/iab-europe-mediascope-2012-romania, viewed on June 7th, 2013.

24. Moreno, A. and P. Capriotti. 2009. Communicating CSR, citizenship and sustainability on the web, in Journal

of Communication Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 157-175.

25. National Cancer Institute. 2012. Cell Phones and Cancer Risk, available at

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones, viewed on May 9th, 2013.

26. Philips, R. 2003. Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

27. Porter, M.E. and M. R. Kramer. 2003. The competitive advantage of Corporate Philanthropy in Harvard

Business Review on Corporate Responsibility. Harvard: HBS Press; pp: 27-65.

28. Porter, M. and M. Kramer. 2006. Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate

social responsibility, in Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 12, pp. 78-92.

29. Ros-Diego, V-R and A. Castelló-Martínez. 2012. CSR communication through online social media in Revista

Latina de Comunicación Social, 67, pp: 47-67.

30. SGG (Romanian Government General Secretary) . 2011. National Strategy for Promoting Social

Responsibility 2011-2016, available at

http://www.sgg.ro/nlegislativ/docs/2011/05/2x4bdfjnwskv89h17pzq.pdf, viewed on May 9th, 2013.

31. Starbuck, W. H. and Nystrom P.C. 2006. Organizational Facades in Organizational Realities. Studies of

Strategizing and Organizing (W.H. Starbuck, eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press; pp: 201-209.

32. Smith, C. 2003. The New Corporate Philanthropy in Harvard Business Review on Corporate Responsibility.

Harvard, MA: Harvard Business School Press. pp: 157-189.

33. Westhues, M. and S. Einwiller. 2006. Corporate Foundations: Their Role for Corporate Social

Responsibility”, in Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 144–153.