filter by tag: philanthropy

The following is a guest post by a Cone client. Evan Hochberg directs Deloitte’s national Community Involvement program where he provides strategic direction for philanthropy, volunteerism, pro-bono and workplace giving.

It has been 10 months since the Serve America Act was passed into law. During that time, the tremendous buzz created by President Obama and others on the subject of service has been palpable. However, much of the discussion has been focused on driving numbers – volunteers and volunteer hours. Today, as the corporate giving community celebrates International Corporate Philanthropy Day, I encourage the corporate philanthropy and nonprofit communities to extend the service dialogue beyond transactional goals and metrics. If volunteerism is to be a powerful driver of social impact and business value, we must focus not just on more volunteers, but on more productive volunteering.

It is not enough to simply encourage our employees to volunteer, when volunteerism too often equates to unskilled labor. Nonprofits are sophisticated organizations and they need more from us. When it comes to impacting critical issues through volunteerism, we must remember that this is not an area where more volunteers necessarily equals greater impact. Volunteers are a means to making a positive contribution to society, but it's what these generous people do with their time that is really important. We must design volunteer efforts that can truly make an enduring difference. For example, at Deloitte, we have developed initiatives that harnesses and contributes the best thinking of our people, including our $50 million pro bono program, our Deloitte Center for Leadership and the Community, and many other skills-based volunteering programs. By sharing our personnel’s critical business skills and knowledge, we are able to deliver more valuable outcomes to the nonprofits with whom we work and to the communities that depend upon them.

Deloitte has also been proud to serve as a co-convener of Reimagining Service, a coalition of leaders from the government, nonprofit and corporate sectors who seek to increase the impact of volunteers and their ability to address our country’s most pressing social issues.

Too often, talented people with good intentions are given volunteer tasks that do not leverage their skills and knowledge. A key to our success as a service nation is not just getting people to care, but also helping them figure out how they can make the greatest difference, given their time, their skills and the pressing needs of the community.

- Evan Hochberg, National Director of Community Involvement, Deloitte Services LP 

We’ve all seen examples of companies jumping on the cause bandwagon, but this may be the first boat. According to a recent article from The Wall Street Journal construction is underway on Utopia, a luxury cruise ship that is using more than onboard amenities and exotic ports-of-call to sell its multi-million dollar residences. More than just a luxury cruise, it’s being touted as a “‘platform’ for learning, cultural exchange and philanthropy,” complete with an on-board Philanthropy Concierge.

So what is the connection to philanthropy? The cruise liner’s Web site indicates residents have opportunities to host galas on board – with mention that fundraising solicitation of other residents is not allowed – a Philanthropy Concierge who will book a lunch or dinner with other philanthropists at destinations along the route or day trips to visit an orphanage. All of these “philanthropic” options are situated alongside amenities such as “shopping” and “indulgences.”

But there’s something about Utopia that has us feeling a bit sea sick. Philanthropy requires a contribution to organizations seeking solutions to social problems, yet the Utopia program appears to fall short. There is no clear connection between the on-board services offered and any tangible outcomes, or even tangible opportunities for that matter, which makes it feel more like a way to balance extravagance with altruism than a true commitment to social good.

What do you think? Is Utopia smart to promote philanthropic behavior on its luxury ship, or are they simply using the buzzword to appear committed to the greater good?

We hardly need another reason to extol the value of dedicated volunteers to the work of nonprofit organizations, but bear with us a moment, this one is pretty compelling. According to a new study, not only do volunteers add value to an organization, but it turns out they give value, too.

A study of more than 1,000 people from the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund and VolunteerMatch revealed, on average, people donate 10 times more if they have volunteered during the past year. Specifically, the study showed Americans who had volunteered in the past 12 months donated an average of $2,593 compared to $230 from non-volunteers. Finally, this benefit is staying inside the organization’s walls in most cases: 67 percent of American volunteers say they generally give back to the same organizations where they volunteer.

These powerful statistics are further underscored by the shared attitude (for two-thirds of survey respondents) that “true philanthropy” translates to both time and money. The survey only spoke to individuals, but this sentiment also holds true for companies who can multiply their own impact on important causes by dedicating both time and financial resources. The takeaway is that “true philanthropy” requires a holistic approach, and frankly, we couldn’t agree more.

With all the chatter about the ups and downs of charitable giving during the down economy, it’s refreshing to hear some definitive - and positive - news. According to the 2009 Giving in Numbers Report, released this week by the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP), corporate giving was actually up during 2007-2008, despite worries that corporations would back down from charitable commitments as the economic turmoil raged in the second half of the year. What’s more, the data show that companies got creative when the economy started to sink, opting for pro bono work and skills-based volunteerism instead of simply backing down from their social commitments. In fact, the Wall Street Journal this week profiled how four chief executives at leading companies are rethinking their philanthropic strategies.

Other key findings from the CECP report include:

• A majority (51%) of companies surveyed increased giving from 2007 to 2008 despite 68 percent experiencing profit declines
• Among Fortune 100 companies, who experienced greater-than-average profit declines, 60 percent increased giving from 2007 to 2008
• Of companies surveyed, a full 91 percent report having an employee matching-gift program
• Ninety-four percent of survey respondents have at least one formal domestic volunteerism program and 49 percent of respondents have at least one formal international volunteer program
• The median number of pro bono time donated was 1,080 hours by companies that reported having such programs
• Consistent with past years, 86 percent of companies report having a corporate foundation

To download the full report for free, visit CECP’s Web site.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is taking a results-driven approach to promoting American investments in global health efforts by releasing an advertisement centered on impact. The video, part of the Living Proof Project, will strike a chord with policy-makers, philanthropists and citizens alike not by centering on unmet need, but by highlighting true and measureable change: “Polio cases reduced by 99%;” “Mother-to-child HIV prevention in 16 million pregnancies;” “Malaria cases down 50% in 29 countries.” This approach instills confidence that funding saves lives.

Aimed at policymakers to sway additional funding, the positive message will reach stakeholders beyond those already engaged with the project. The Gates Foundation hopes the commercial, and specifically the measured results, will encourage grant makers and individual philanthropists to give where it counts. As Bill Gates points out, “We see that these things are working, and we’re willing to continue to make investments. I think then other people say, Okay, it must be working or people wouldn’t put their own money into it.”

Additional messages on the project’s Web site encourage advocates to pass along the positive thinking and to “Dispel the myths. When you hear someone say ‘It’s just money down a hole,’ or ‘Saving lives just leads to overpopulation,’ tell them why they’re wrong. These investments work. They empower people, and they’re appreciated."

In the bevy of important social and environmental issues that ask stakeholders for financial support every day, programs that show impact are in high demand. The pressure is now on nonprofits to show the ROI.

Aristotle once said, “He who cannot be a good follower cannot be a good leader.”

While I can’t say he was referencing Twitter, the wise philosopher certainly knew what he was talking about. In the age of new media, following is an increasingly overt component of leadership. Leading companies take advantage of Facebook, myspace, Twitter and the like, to follow the conversation about their brand and business opportunities and engage with stakeholders in transparent and courageous dialogue resulting in mutual gain.

But who should you follow? It depends on your target audiences and needs. For companies promoting corporate philanthropic programs, a few ideas on who to follow and why are below.

• Nonprofit Partners: Learn what they’re doing, who they’re working with and how you can help. Don’t forget to encourage them to promote your program using new media.
  
  
• Employees: Connect with your employees online and outside of work to create internal and external program ambassadors, solicit feedback on the program and identify volunteer opportunities.
  
  
• Customers: Gauge consumer interest in your cause of choice, monitor for program commentary, and spread awareness by activating consumers virally online.
  
  
• Issue Leaders: Stay abreast of the latest trends from the mouths of the movers and shakers; identify opportunities to engage and collaborate on the next big idea.
  
  
• Issue Competitors: Keep track of the newest programs other companies are implementing that impact your issue, discover best practices and apply them to ensure your program becomes the best.
  
  
• Convening Organizations: Learn about upcoming conferences and events and program promotion opportunities and identify the value of participating.

- Jillian Wilson Martin, Senior Account Executive

The 5th Clinton Global Initiative Annual Meeting (CGI) wraps up today, leaving in its wake a list of new commitments to solve the world’s most pressing problems. The event is structured to spark action – boasting discussions, not presentations, and requiring results. Former president and meeting host Bill Clinton states, “If you don’t make a commitment or you make one and don’t keep it, you don’t get to come back. That’s what started it, that’s what makes it run.”

The results of the initiative to-date prove the effectiveness of this model: $46 billion in funding has been directed toward causes such as education, climate change and healthcare since the CGI inception in 2005.

Cross-sector collaboration is the other key tenant of the CGI. This year, a record 960 attendees representing 84 countries took part, including heads of state, celebrities and nonprofit and corporate leaders – a true Who’s Who of cross-sector leaders and dignitaries with personal passion for societal solutions. The media buzz alone surrounding the event helped spur action by attracting attention and notable donors to important causes. This year’s event focused on harnessing innovation for development, strengthening infrastructure, building human capital and financing equitable sustainable future. For the first time, the event also focused on narrowing the gender gap.

Action speaks loudly. As President Obama stressed during his kickoff speech, “You can't just be an advocate of someone else doing it, preach lofty goals and wait for someone else to act. You have to step up." Could his words hold true for G-20 Summit leaders gathering this weekend in Pittsburgh?

Attention employers: your employees need some focus. OK, maybe not news to you, but we’re not talking about the memo that should have been done last week (hardly our business!). We’re referring to your employees’ company-supported charitable giving.

At a time when many companies are moving toward more focused corporate philanthropy, fewer may be tapping an underutilized resource – their employee giving programs. More strategic employee giving can provide a number of benefits for the company, its staff and the nonprofit beneficiaries, and like its name (“strategic choice employee giving”) implies, it can be both focused and flexible.

To learn about strategic choice employee giving and the role it plays in a focused corporate philanthropy program, download Cone’s latest insight, “Corporate Philanthropy: Are Your Employees Working Hard Enough?” and read on… Then take a moment to participate in our poll question on this topic to the right.

Want to really engage consumers in your cause efforts? Then give them a voice. Target, well-regarded for its philanthropic commitments, relinquished some control this week as it launched “Bullseye Gives,” a campaign allowing consumers to decide how to give away Target’s money. The company will divide a $3 million donation among its 10 charity partners, determined by consumer votes on the Target Facebook page.

Consumer-centric philanthropy campaigns like this are not new, but they are clearly resonating. In the past year, American Express, Western Union* and Trip Advisor have all launched similar consumer-driven online contests, powerful because they offer unique benefits to all parties.

First, online contests’ user-friendly, low- to no-cost tools provide companies a channel to connect with consumers on a more personal level than traditional checkbook philanthropy (in turn, perhaps breeding greater trust, engagement and loyalty). It allows consumers to select a cause of importance to them, which, according to Cone’s research, is the leading factor (84%) they say will influence their support of a company’s social efforts. And, as The New York Times says, such campaigns are “adding yet another weapon to charities’ fund-raising arsenal” while also building awareness. Most importantly, it helps level the playing field for both consumers and nonprofits who all have an equal voice in influencing the outcome. Bullseye.

For much more news on this topic, please see our weekly newsletter. Subscribe to Cone's newsletter here.

*Cone Client

It is refreshing to see goodness still bursting through in this bruising world economy. Nike, for the second year in a row, has teamed with Ashoka, a nonprofit that stimulates social entrepreneurism, to search globally for sports programs fostering social change. Both share a philosophy that philanthropy should be driven by innovation. The search takes place online at GameChangers: change the game for Women in Sport.

Last year three winners each received $5,000. Projects included Grassroots Soccer, a program leveraging soccer's popularity to educate young South Africans about HIV and AIDS, and in the U.S., Sports4Kids which provides physical activity and conflict resolution training to underserved children.

This year, the contest focuses on innovative programs targeting women's issues. By tying its philanthropy to key consumer segments, brand attributes such as innovation and its sustainable commitment to building girls' and women's self esteem through sport, Nike strategically links its "goodness" to its business. In these highly challenging times, creating "shared value," as Michael Porter calls it, is a smart business decision to enhance the effectiveness of giving, linking it to core business growth strategies. Interestingly, the potential for social change, not pure commerce, excites Nike through this contest. "If sport can be a major strategy for reducing HIV prevalence, then that's huge," says Ziba Cranmer, senior manager of social innovation at Nike.

Kudos to Nike for aligning its innovation in products with its international philanthropy. It is encouraging to see its constant creation of cutting-edge, sport-social impact programs. And, it is perhaps even more encouraging to see the words of Chairman and Founder Phil Knight come to life: “The performance of Nike and every other global company in the 21st century will be measured as much by their impact on quality of life, as it is by revenue growth and profit margins.”

The GE Foundation just announced  that it will shift its philanthropic focus in 2009 toward meeting basic needs. The company will redirect $20 million dollars, a fifth of its total giving, to feeding, clothing and providing shelter for people in need. What’s more, GE is engaging its employees in the effort by increasing its match for employee contributions up to two-to-one if they are giving to organizations meeting basic needs in their communities. 

http://www.ge.com/citizenship/index.jsp

Although the issues from which the money will be diverted will no doubt feel the pinch, GE is taking a bold position in fulfilling its social contract by tailoring its philanthropy to those areas where it sees the greatest immediate need, while maintaining its existing commitments where possible. The announcement brought to light Cone’s recent prediction that companies will move their giving toward local causes and basic needs as they strive to support the communities in which they have a presence during tough economic times. Companies continue to invest in issues core to their business success, while also recognizing the need to meet social needs as they arise. It's about being focused, but fluid.  Leadership companies with strong values understand their obligation to make good on both ends. 
 
The evidence indicating companies have no intentions of giving up on their commitments to society in 2009 is plentiful, but as GE has shown, the approach, priorities and objectives are likely to change. To see Cone’s complete article on how companies will sustain their cause initiatives in the new year, please click here . 

Companies and individuals are increasingly approaching global and domestic issues in a new way. The days of simply cutting a check to support a charity have changed. Since the issues and challenges we face today are global, individuals and companies are choosing to not just give to people in need, but to invest in helping others and address issues around the world. 

The difference between giving and investing lies both in the expectations and the results.  Where giving may end with the check being cut, investing requires an ROI.  Giving is largely measured in outputs (i.e., # of books donated), whereas investing is more concerned with outcomes (percent of women moving out of poverty as a result of education).

Kiva.org is a great example of individuals investing in the efforts of people around the world as they try to pull themselves and their families out of poverty. In the corporate world, ITT (a Cone client) is investing in sustainable water solutions in communities to increase child success through education, while decreasing absentee days due to illness and unhealthful sanitation experiences. ITT has a three+ year measurement system in place to track this social investment. 

Five years ago, companies would give money to help build a school somewhere in the world.  Today, they are investing not only in the school building, but in the development of the children who will benefit from the school.  Investing is sustainable and will help drive true social change.

How about you?  What do you think?

Join today’s Blog Action Day dialogue about poverty and share your thoughts and examples about how companies and nonprofits alike are moving from giving to investing. 

- Jeff Terry, VP Cause Branding

Can a simple act change one person's life? A village? A country?

Nicholas Kristof wrote on July 4th a column in The New York Times that stopped me in my tracks. The story is about a young woman, Beatrice Biira, and a goat.

Beatrice and her family lived in western Uganda. Her parents, impoverished peasants, could not afford to send her to school until fate, in the form of a goat, intervened. Children from the Niantic, Connecticut Community Church wanted to do good, so they donated goats to African villagers through Heifer International .

One of the goats, at a cost to the children of $120, went to Beatrice's parents. The goats had twins, and they eventually gave the family an income from their milk. This gave Beatrice the opportunity for schooling.

A diligent student, she worked fiercely to succeed. An American visiting her village met the young girl, which inspired a children's book, Beatrice's Goat . It became a best seller.

Beatrice's dedication to school paid off. She earned a series of scholarships: to the top girls' school in Uganda; a Massachusetts prep school and then Connecticut College, from which she graduated this spring.

Her next step is graduate school at the Clinton School of Public Service in Arkansas. Then she plans to return to Africa to help women increase their earning power.

While Kristof ended his piece: 'The challenges of global poverty are vast and complex,' I think that sometimes a simple action can change a life, a village and even a country. It may not even take millions of aid dollars, just hard work, serendipity and a small goat named Luck.

How wonderful that simple, joined with a determined human spirit, can be so powerful.

-Carol

The Northern California Grantmakers recently held a conference devoted to helping companies responsibly navigate their giving strategies during an economic downturn.  None of the companies in attendance anticipated a decrease in their philanthropic budget for 2008 or 2009, yet all recognized their staffing and resources to execute programs would decrease.

I joined impressive speakers from Levi’s, IBM, Starbucks, Target and Cisco, companies who despite past recessions, have all maintained their commitments as leaders in giving back.  Below are some key best practices that were shared collectively:

1. Build the business case to your senior executives for maintaining your philanthropic budgets as it is a key strategy for building reputation and strengthening relationships with diverse stakeholders.  Levi’s and Bank of America stressed that they sought and educated select senior level champions to advocate on their foundation’s behalf.  They also built a “spiderweb” of networks and relationships within the organization at all levels and divisions. 

2. Focus your giving and resources on 1-2 issues.  It allows you to have a greater impact on the issue and say “no” to the many organizations knocking on your door.  Pacific Gas and Electric moved from five diverse issues to focusing on empowering its employees and customers to take action on the environment through programs such as its Solar Schools and Solar Habitat Program . 

3. Give more than the 5 percent of your endowment, if you have one.  This is the rainy day that you have been waiting for.  Years back, Levi’s gave over 15 percent of its endowment to maintain its giving levels!

4. Rely more heavily on the assets you have beyond cash, especially your employee volunteerism, if your budgets are stagnating or decreasing.  Gap significantly increased its volunteerism in the early 2000’s, while IBM focused on lending technical expertise and software.

5. Reduce or suspend matching gifts.  Some companies only matched if it was consistent with their giving focus area.

6. Create turn-key programs with nonprofits that require minimal corporate staff time to manage.

7. Hold your nonprofit partners accountable for measuring the social impact of your contribution.  Market results back to your internal and external stakeholders.

According to new research, money can buy you happiness – but only if you spend it on someone else.

It seems lately that everyone is on a quest for happiness. Some believe a higher income will make them happier, but study after study has shown that once basic needs are met, little increase in happiness comes from a higher salary. Giving money away, however, may be just the trick. 

An article in the March issue of Science magazine covered a series of studies on spending conducted by Harvard Business School professor Michael Norton with two colleagues from the University of British Columbia. In one test, employees receiving a company bonus were surveyed about their happiness before and after the check. Those who spent a larger portion of their bonus on others experienced a greater lift in happiness; the actual size of the bonus had no impact. In another study, people were given $5 or $20 and told to spend it over the course of the day with instructions to spend it on themselves or others. Once again, those who gave the money away - regardless of whether it was $5 or $20 -  were happier than those that spent it on themselves. Key takeaway: even $5 can have an impact. 

According to initial findings released by the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy this month, corporate giving grew by 5.6 percent last year to a per company median of more than $26 million.  The findings, compiled from data collected from 155 companies, revealed that about two-thirds of companies increased their giving, including seven of the eight who reported losses.  The data are reassuring.  Even as the economy weakens and amidst what Newsweek calls “ The Coming Charity Crisis ,” companies recognize the significant reputational and social benefits their corporate philanthropy provides.  Nevertheless, companies will face increasing pressure to justify their commitment to corporate philanthropy to the very stakeholders who have high expectations for it in the first place, from consumers (who are struggling with higher prices), to employees (as they worry about job security), to executives and shareholders (who want to see the ROI).  Today and always, a strategic, focused philanthropic program has the most measurable business and social impact, so we recommend a number of elements for companies to consider to better ensure the sustainability of their corporate philanthropy programs in uncertain times:

• Choose a social issue to support that is aligned with your business to leverage your size and assets for greater impact.
• Focus your giving within this issue space (considering revisiting your employee giving policies as well).
• Prioritize giving in key markets based on your areas of greatest need (e.g., increase employee morale and minimize turnover, spread corporate culture to a new facility, leverage existing sponsorships in certain cities, etc.). 
• Evaluate/reevaluate your nonprofit partners to ensure they fit within your focus area, meet your established partnership criteria and have proven, measureable social impact.  Limit pet charities. 
• Engage your nonprofit partners to identify ways, beyond cash, in which you can provide much needed support.  Professional expertise, employee volunteerism, cause marketing and advertising or marketing support are just a handful of ways in which you can add value.
• Measure to ensure demonstrable business and social return. 

Alison DaSilva, Cone’s VP of Knowledge Leadership and Insights, will be speaking on this very topic next Tuesday at the Northern California Grantmakers Corporate Philanthropy Institute.  For more information, please visit the Web site . 

In the last several weeks, two natural disasters swept Asia.  The May 3rd cyclone in Myanmar has a projected death toll of 140,000 people with millions more in need of help, while the May 12th earthquake in China has killed close to 35,000, leaving 250,000 people hurt and millions homeless. 

In the wake of such disasters, we can’t help but be reminded of other tragedies during the last seven years and the generous and effective response of so many U.S. companies.  Companies donated approximately $600 million toward Hurricane Katrina relief in 2005, $565 million toward the tsunami response in 2004 and more than $750 million to benefit those affected by the September 11 terrorist attack in 2001.

Many of the major corporate donors who responded to these earlier disasters are the same ones lending aid in Myanmar and China.  Approximate donations by some leading companies include:

• Abbott:   $800K (Myanmar), $1 million (China), $4 million (Tsunami), $6.5 million (Katrina), $2 million (9/11)
• Pfizer:   $150,000 (Myanmar), $10 million (China), $10 million (Tsunami), $2+ million (Katrina), $10 million (9/11)
• Cisco:   $1 million (Myanmar), $1 million (China), $1 million (Tsunami), $2 million (Katrina), $6 million (9/11)
• Chevron:   $2 million (Myanmar), $1.4 million (China), $10 million (Tsunami), $1 million (Katrina)
• UPS: $200,000 (Myanmar), $1 million (China), $2 million (Tsunami), $1.5 million (Katrina)
• Wal-Mart: $430,000 (China), $2 million (Tsunami), $17 million (Katrina), $7.3 million (9/11)

Betting, clicking, searching, recycling.  A diverse set of actions, yes, but increasingly with one key thing in common:  they are each providing people with opportunities to make a difference.  In the news this week are a number of innovative, albeit small, ways in which individuals are employing everyday actions to support nonprofits and causes. 

From politics to pop culture, Bet2give lets users make a wager on anything (Clinton vs. Obama?  Brangelina’s impending demise?), but with one caveat- all winnings go to the user’s charity of choice.  A growing number of Web sites allow users to donate to charities simply by clicking on banner ads or performing everyday searches.  And, a group in Japan is demonstrating its philanthropic prowess in a rather unusual way- by recycling used dentures .  It turns out dentures are veritable treasure troves of precious metals (a typical set is about 30 percent gold, silver and palladium).  Since late 2006, the Japan Denture Recycling Association has recycled 30,000 dentures, generating more than $176,000 for charity.  More striking, though, is that the project leader estimates that if all 3.6 million dentures containing precious metals were reprocessed for their valuable parts, it would represent more than $68 million.

In today’s slowing economy, and as nonprofits struggle to meet the needs of their beneficiaries in the midst of increasing food and fuel costs , infusing diverse opportunities to give into everyday activities will help keep potential donors engaged and attuned to the issues around them.  Though they will never supplant more traditional, long-term fundraising approaches, these simple, yet savvy fundraising efforts may help generate buzz and engage new donors who are used to being courted by brands via sophisticated and innovative technologies.

If you’re looking to build a compelling employee giving program as part of a philanthropy initiative, or you’re hoping to increase contributions to a non-profit, behavioral economists may have some answers for you. “ What makes people give? ,” an article in last week’s New York Times Magazine , explored the results of new studies designed to answer that very question. One found that the promise of a 1-to-1 match enticed more people to give to an organization, but anything above that (a 2-1 or 3-1 match) did not significantly increase donations. 

On the surface, this does not make much sense – a higher match is essentially a discounted donation because it allows a donor to have the same effect for less money, and who doesn’t love a discount?  However, these results prove the theory that people care just as much about the “warm glow” they get when they donate money to a good cause as they do about the impact that money will have.  People want to help feed starving children, but they also want to be the type of person who helps feed starving children.  This is crucial to keep in mind when trying to engage employees in a matching gift program.  For instance, instead of trying to entice more employees to give by offering a 2-1 match, consider offering a 1-1 match and using the additional money to celebrate contributors in company publications or on an intranet site.  The “warm glow” can be contagious, and this type of public recognition will likely inspire others to get involved as well.

-Leah Gutstadt, Assistant Account Executive

A controversy has arisen about the decision of a Columbus, Ohio children’s hospital to name its emergency department and trauma center after locally-based retailer Abercrombie & Fitch.  The company made a $10 million donation in 2006. 

Clearly, this is not the first time the Nationwide Children’s Hospital has offered corporate naming rights in exchange for donations, but this is the first time the decision has been so controversial.  Critics argue this instance “is more egregious” as the hospital is linking itself to a brand some consider highly provocative and inappropriate for a young audience.

In light of increasing pressure among nonprofits to compete for the major donor dollar, many are struggling with how to provide the strongest recognition and ROI.  Anyone can question the hospital’s decision, but it is ultimately up to the organization and its stakeholders to decide what is appropriate.  The key is whether they have clear criteria in place to guide these decisions.  Would they grant Columbus-based Victoria’s Secret, a major segment of Limited Brands, the honor of naming rights in exchange for a significant philanthropic gift?  It’s a slippery slope, and established guidelines are critical to help navigate the decision-making process.  Questions to consider:

- What industries, business practices, products and/or services conflict with the mission of the organization? 
- Are the company’s values and brand in alignment with the nonprofit?
- How authentic is the company’s commitment to the issue and organization?
- What are the reputational risks of aligning your brand with theirs? Has the company been involved in any questionable practices?
- Are there other ways the nonprofit can work with the company that will provide value to each entity, beyond naming rights?

For those who think the critics can easily be ignored, note that one of the major groups behind the hospital initiative, the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, launched an aggressive public relations campaign around McDonald’s sponsorship of student report cards.  The company discontinued the program earlier this year.

*This insights brief is part of Cone's weekly cause and corporate responsibility newsletter.  If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, please email skerkian@coneinc.com .

McKinsey recently released a new report about the state of corporate philanthropy, and a notable finding is that nearly 90 percent of companies say creating business benefits (including enhancing corporate reputation or brand, improving employee recruitment and retention and competitive differentiation) is a key goal for their organizations’ philanthropy programs.  This might indicate a move toward more strategic corporate giving if it weren’t for a later stat that points to the CEO’s and board members’ personal interests as the leading driver of a company’s philanthropic focus.  This is an obvious disconnect.

The vast majority of companies view business benefits as a critical outcome for philanthropic efforts, but the personal interests of senior management trump business factors (e.g., alignment with business needs, option to leverage existing corporate capabilities or assets) when determining direction.  Perhaps this is a contributing factor to why only 14 percent of companies believe their philanthropy programs are very or extremely effective at meeting their business goals and only about a fifth of respondents believe they are very or extremely effective in meeting their social goals and stakeholder expectations.  When philanthropy is regarded as strategic among CEOs, it will be more aligned with a company’s business needs and more effectively integrated throughout the organization.  Only then will the right assets be leveraged to drive toward more attainable and sustainable business and social outcomes.

*This insights brief is part of Cone's weekly cause and corporate responsibility newsletter.  If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, please email skerkian@coneinc.com .

And the winners are: a small Oklahoma charity that aids orphaned Chinese children, a small animal rescue group in New Jersey and an organization that fights epilepsy.  These are the winners of major new charity contests designed to promote online fundraising, such as “America’s Giving Challenge” and the “Causes Giving Challenge.” These contests are just one new media application providing unprecedented opportunities for smaller nonprofits to extend their reach and competitively vie for donor attention.  Though they provide greater access than ever before, such activity has stirred a debate about whether this success comes at the expense of the traditional charitable players.

According to a Reuter’s article this week, “Tough times, more charities pinch Salvation Army,” the Salvation Army and perhaps other large organizations are experiencing a decline in the rate of growth of their donations.  The increasing cost of living and the threat of a recession certainly play a role, but Sandra Miniutti, a spokeswoman for Charity Navigator, believes that other factors also come into play. She states that the growing number of charities vying for donations and the changes in what are considered “trendy causes” over time (today, the environment) are shifting the priorities of donors.  It comes as no surprise to say that nonprofits, even those with a long history of donor loyalty, will have to become increasingly innovative in communications efforts to stay top of mind with potential donors who have a veritable buffet of cause options at a click of the mouse.      

What do you think?  Do grassroots new media efforts that bolster small, lesser known nonprofits run the risk of doing so at the expense of the traditional, large nonprofits?  If you’re interested in joining the discussion, please share your comments below.

Intel has received much negative press lately for ending its partnership with the nonprofit One Laptop Per Child (OLPC).  OLPC’s program was designed to produce low-cost computers ($100) to bring technology and educational opportunities to children in the developing world.  Intel joined the project last July only to pull out mere months later.  What went wrong? 

OLPC encountered problems from the beginning.  Despite announcing that the technology could be created for only $100, it has been unable to get costs below $188. Intel produces its own low-cost laptop, the Classmate.  (The major difference in these machines is that the Classmate runs on Windows and costs slightly more.)  When OLPC demanded Intel stop marketing the Classmate, Intel refused and dropped out of the OLPC project.  As a result, Intel has been faulted for everything from offering an inferior product to trying to take a nonprofit out of business.  This raises a few questions in my mind:

1.  Is the Classmate really “inferior”?  Not every community has the same technology needs.  I have trouble seeing how offering multiple options can be harmful. 

2.  Are we really setting children up for success if we are not giving them the system that most others are using?   According to Market Share, Windows currently has over a 91% share of Operating Systems globally. 

3.  Finally, if the primary goal of OLPC is to educate children around the world, why does an additional company providing low-cost computers pose such a threat?  I would think that more support for the cause would not be looked at as competition.

OLPC has no doubt created a breakthrough technology; however, it seems very sad that these two organizations could not work together in a shared mission.

-Dena Pizzutti, Senior Account Executive, Cause Branding

Bill Gates spoke at Davos this week with a call-to-action for companies to embrace “creative capitalism,” pushing companies to focus on building products and services for the poor.  "Such a system would have a twin mission: making profits and also improving lives for those who don't fully benefit from market forces," Gates explained.

At Cone, we refer to this dual-purpose as “Socially Aligned Business Initiatives(sm),” strategies that leverage an organization’s operations and scale to drive long-term social change, while providing the greatest opportunities to grow and reinforce the business. 

Gates urges that the key to successful creative capitalism is for businesses to “dedicate their top people to poor issues.”  To go above and beyond traditional philanthropy, it is essential that the effort is cross-functional and taps not only corporate giving, but also human resources, marketing, product development and other areas.  The leaders in the space—Nike, GE and Home Depot, to name a few—realize the benefits they can derive from their efforts: enhanced reputation and brand equity, stronger relationships with NGOs and influentials, increased sales, market development and product innovation.

Carol, Kiva and I returned last week from the Institute for International Research “Future Trends” conference in Miami with a welcome message for this holiday season – the more you give, the more you get. Below are some interesting takeaways from the conference supporting this message:

Arthur Brooks, an economist, author and keynote speaker, has written about the economics of giving. Based on analysis of several studies, he claims the ROI of individual giving is 3.75 to 1. That’s right, give a dollar and make $3.75, give $100 and make $375. For more on Brooks' analysis, see his recent article in Condé Nast’s Portfolio magazine.

An exciting concept – but how, and why, does it work?

This curious economic case is apparently one that makes good psychological sense. Many of us have heard of a “helper’s high” or the “Mother Teresa effect” – ideas that charitable acts lead to positive feelings. Brooks notes: givers are 33% more likely to say they are happy than are non-givers. Books like Luks’ and Payne’s “ The Healing Powers of Doing Good ” or Stephen Post’s “ Why Good Things Happen to Good People ” cover the actual change in brain chemistry that occurs after doing something charitable. Giving actually produces endorphins and reduces stress hormones in a similar way that exercise does. And, studies show that people who are happier and less stressed tend to be more productive and more apt to succeed.

Cheryl Swanson of Toniq claims that as a nation we are obsessed with the notion of happiness because we are clearly missing it. Professor Tal Ben Sahar, backs up Ms. Swanson’s point – his course, Positive Psychology, is currently the most popular one taught at Harvard . While Brooks claims the return on giving stems in part from decreased stress, Sahar provides more fodder for this case, noting the costs associated with high stress. He claims that stress is actually the leading cause of productivity losses due to absenteeism, illness, turnover, etc.

America has always been driven by money, and we are clearly seeking greater happiness. In our stressed out, overly “plugged in” state, what better way to achieve both than by giving more of our dollars and our time?

First, imagine the implications for you personally and for your family. Act as a role model for your kids by giving and volunteering regularly, and in turn, teach them valuable life lessons that benefit society while keeping them healthy, happy and wealthy.

Now, take that up a notch and imagine the implications for your company. For Cone, the idea that giving breeds wealth and power is one that we believe in, as we work daily to help companies “stand for something” and focus giving around business-aligned social issues to achieve financial and/or reputational goals. Cone’s research shows that 87 percent of Americans are willing to switch brands, price and quality being equal, if the other is associated with a good cause. Average corporate giving was about .93 percent of pre-tax profit in 2006 ( CECP Giving in Numbers 2007 ) and best-of-breed companies like Target are committed to giving five percent of income to select worthwhile causes.

But don’t stop at just making corporate cash donations. Offer more opportunities for employees to volunteer, encourage individual employee giving by matching donations and recognize top givers/volunteers to increase incentives. Employees will model your behavior as a good corporate citizen and you will breed a happier, healthier workforce...and thus a much more productive one. Cone’s research further shows that 83 percent of employees believe it is important for their company to provide ways for them to get involved in causes. At Cone, we too have realized that ROI is becoming increasingly critical for our corporate clients to “sell-in” strategic philanthropy initiatives or to justify continued giving. Our proprietary Cone Social/Business Return Indicator(sm) can actually measure the specific ROI of your company’s philanthropy program(s).

Extend this notion further and imagine the implication for our country, our economy even. Sir Bob Geldof , musician, philanthropist and founder of LiveAid and Live8 and another conference keynote, shared his prediction that cooperation will be the key driver in the future success of our country, our economy and those of developing and other wealthy nations. He believes the era of competition must be over and the era of cooperation and integration must begin – this includes, in large part, the charity of wealthier nations to benefit poorer ones. Based on the theories discussed above, such charity will also improve the wealth of those nations doing the giving. As Mr. Brooks stated it best, “Charitable giving is not just smart investment strategy, but also a patriotic act.”

-Anne Erhard, Account Director, Cause Branding

Last week, Alison DaSilva and I attended in Louisville, KY an internal meeting of Athletes for Hope , a seven-month old nonprofit focused on assisting professional athletes with their charitable endeavors.  The idea of an organization created to help professional athletes with their philanthropy is nothing new; organizations like The Giving Back Fund and the Sports Philanthropy Project have been around for years. 

But, Athletes for Hope (AFH) is different.  It was created by athletes for athletes.  Its founders are some of the best known sports personalities on the planet, including Muhammad Ali, Lance Armstrong and Andre Agassi.  These icons have joined with nine others, including Cal Ripken, Jr., Jeff Gordon, Mia Hamm, Tony Hawk, Mario Lemieux, Andrea Jaeger, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, Warrick Dunn and Alonzo Mourning, to pass on their passion for philanthropy to other athletes.

AFH has a three-pronged mission: to educate professional athletes on philanthropic options, connect them to charities throughout the country based on their specific interests and ultimately recognize and honor athletes for the significant contributions they are making to communities.

The group's development comes at an interesting time in sports philanthropy.  The sizeable increase in the number of athlete charitable foundations is being met by another trend—increased skepticism by the public and media.  This is due in large part to media reports from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal which have criticized several athlete foundations for (1) operating as little more than a way to provide jobs for family and friends and (2) their operating costs at times far exceeding the money or services provided to the community.  The result is a much higher level of expectation for not just athletes but for all facets of the sports community—leagues, teams and even owners, when it comes to their charitable efforts.

With its impressive lineup of founding athletes, its multiple free services for athletes and sustained financial support from Genworth Financial and Stanford Financial Group , Athletes for Hope is well positioned to be a force in sports philanthropy, helping athletes develop sustained philanthropic programs that meet the increased public demand.

Travel Tip: Next time you make it to Louisville, be sure to check out the Muhammad Ali Center .  Located on the Ohio River, this beautiful facility is part-museum, part-cultural center, where groups of all types—local to international—travel to meet and learn from one another. Just as Ali hoped.

-Rich Maiore, Account Director, Cause Branding

Hat Tip to the gang from the Marketing & Strategic Innovation Blog for this one.

There is more proof that the hormone Oxytocin is an important factor in social behavior - and more specifically, giving.

According to Paul Zak, a professor of economics and director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University in Californiahas, studies now show that subjects who inhaled oxytocin gave away 80% more money than subjects who inhaled a placebo.

Researchers found that when participants were given oxytocin through a nasal spray, participants playing the ultimatum game were 80 percent more generous in their offers to split the money.

“People left the lab with less money,” said Zak. “But they weren’t necessarily unhappy.

Here is the full post .

Zak’s work is another big leap forward in the effort to help us better understand the motivation behind charitable giving.  And there are certainly implications for both for-profit and non-profit leaders seeking better ways to interact with their buyers or donors.

-- Brian Reich, Director of New Media

This week Wall Street Journal MarketWatch commentator Herb Greenberg delivered interesting commentary on how corporate philanthropy often reflects that a company has strong cash flow and overall positive financial performance.  He likens philanthropy to paying dividends: it sends a positive message to investors not only that the company has cash on hand, but that the company is a good corporate citizen. 

We are delighted to see this because, as we have found in our research , companies that are good corporate citizens do win the favor of investors.  In 2007, we found that 66 percent of Americans consider a company’s commitment to social issues when deciding which stocks or mutual funds to invest in, a longitudinal increase of 65 percent from 2001.  There seems to be a cyclical effect here: as companies perform well, they have the ability to increase their charitable giving, which in turn creates an increasingly positive vibe among investors who will then increase their support for the company in the financial marketplace.  So, to stay ahead, companies should sharpen their focus on investors, making sure they make a significant effort in analyst presentations, annual reports and news releases to communicate their commitment to social issues.

*This insights brief is part of Cone's weekly cause and corporate responsibility newsletter.  If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, please email skerkian@coneinc.com .

September 11th marks a day we will never forget. We can all remember where we were and our thoughts about what we could do to help the victims of one of our nation’s most significant tragedies.

Corporate executives responded with tremendous speed and generosity to show their support. Within hours of the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center, many companies pledged $1 million or more in aid.  In fact, the growing list of corporate contributors became a highly tracked who’s who of the Fortune 500.  Following the September 11th and Hurricane Katrina tragedies, companies have learned a lot about “thoughtful patriotism.”   

Is making a large cash contribution the right approach?  What should companies do to be responsible corporate citizens?

We offer the following five tips for companies to best support future relief efforts:

1. Cash first, but then think longer-term:  Immediate cash donations allow relief organizations to buy items that meet their most urgent needs. Companies may also want to reserve some support until long-term reconstruction goals become clear.

2. Align longer-term giving with current social commitments:  Many companies already support a specific issue, such as health, education or the environment.  These programs and relationships may be leveraged to support reconstruction activities.  For example, a company that supports education could provide transitional programs for displaced students.  This maximizes in-house expertise and builds a company’s reputation for supporting a specific cause.

3. Don’t give products just because you have them:  By sending in-kind products that are not immediately needed by relief organizations, companies can actually slow down the relief process by creating unnecessary administrative burdens.  Companies should instead proactively seek out in-kind requests from government agencies or relief organizations.

4. Involve your employees:  Employees want to help.  Companies should provide a way for their employees to donate and should also consider offering a matching grant program to inspire them to give.  Companies may also deploy employees as volunteers to assist with reconstruction activities if they have the needed skills.

5. Communicate efforts internally and externally:  No company wants to appear exploitative or inappropriate during times of tragedy.  At the same time, companies that fail to communicate their efforts may be criticized by employees and customers for neglecting to contribute.  To ensure transparency, companies should communicate internally to employees; issue brief and modest, facts-only news releases on Business Wire or PR Newswire to communicate with the media; and reach external stakeholders by providing updates on company participation via the company’s Web site. 

Immediately following any humanitarian tragedy, companies should create a cross-functional team to develop a charitable response strategy.  This team should include senior management from corporate giving, human resources, operations and communications to determine the level, type and timing of support.  Companies must also conduct due diligence on immediate and longer-term grant recipients to ensure their money is being used effectively.  Finally, the team should agree on a transparent internal and external communications strategy.

While we hope tragedies like September 11th and Hurricane Katrina never occur again, we must all strive to be better prepared in our response to assure a truly meaningful impact for those who need it most.

-Alison