en pl
en pl

Central European Management Journal

Show issue
Year 10/2021 
Volume 29 
Issue 3

Drivers of Strategic Approach to Philanthropy in the Czech Republic

Klara Kubickova
Prague University of Economics and Business

10/2021 29 (3) Central European Management Journal

DOI 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.55

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to provide an empirical study of the factors that influence how companies engage in strategic philanthropy and philanthropic strategy.

Methodology: A target group of Czech companies engaged in corporate philanthropy was contacted with an e-mail containing a hyperlink to an online questionnaire. In total, 296 companies participated in the study. Secondary data was collected from the Albertina database, Anopress IT database, and 2016–2018 annual reports. Logistic regression and likelihood-ratio tests were used to analyze the data.

Findings: The results imply that company size, ownership, industry, slack resources, and visibility are predictors of philanthropic strategy. Company size and headquarters’ location are predictors of strategic philanthropy. The legitimacy strategy and slack resource theory may explain engagement in philanthropic strategy, but not in strategic philanthropy.

Originality: This study contributes to scarce research addressing the drivers of the strategic approach to philanthropy. It provides a comprehensive empirical study of the factors influencing strategic philanthropic practices in the Czech Republic.

References

  1. Anheier, H. and Winder, D. (2007). Innovations in strategic philanthropy: Lessons from Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, and Latin America. In: H. Anheier, A. Simmons, D. Winder (Eds.), Innovations in Strategic Philanthropy: Local and Global Perspectives (First Edition ed., pp. 145). New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  2. Adamska, A., Dabrowski, T. and Grygiel-Tomaszewska, A. (2016). Socially Responsible Investment in Post-Communist and Developed European Countries. Revue d’études comparatives Est-Ouest, 3(3), 7–43. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0338059916003016. [Google Scholar]
  3. Amato, L.H. and Amato, C.H. (2012). Retail Philanthropy: Firm Size, Industry, and Business Cycle. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1048-x. [Google Scholar]
  4. Barraket, J. and Yousefpour, N. (2013). Evaluation and social impact measurement amongst small to medium social enterprises: Process, purpose and value. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 72(4), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12042. [Google Scholar]
  5. Blasco, J.L. and King, A. (2017). KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017. Obtained from: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2017/10/kpmg-survey-of-corporate-responsibility-reporting-2017.pdf (21 January 2019). [Google Scholar]
  6. Block, E.S., Glavas, A., Mannor, M. J. and Erskine, L. (2017). Business for Good? An Investigation into the Strategies Firms Use to Maximize the Impact of Financial Corporate Philanthropy on Employee Attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(1), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2930-8. [Google Scholar]
  7. Brammer, S. and Millington, A. (2005). Corporate Reputation and Philanthropy: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-7443-4. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brammer, S. and Millington, A. (2006). Firm size, organizational visibility and corporate philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00424.x. [Google Scholar]
  9. Brammer, S. and Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1325–1343. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.714. [Google Scholar]
  10. Brammer, S., Millington, A. and Pavelin, S. (2006). Is philanthropy strategic? An analysis of the management of charitable giving in large UK companies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(3), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00446.x. [Google Scholar]
  11. Briš, P. and Brišová, H. (2013). The growing importance of the practical application of corporate social responsibility in the management of companies in the Czech Republic. Journal of Competitiveness, 5(2), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2013.02.09. [Google Scholar]
  12. Buchholtz, A.K., Amason, A.C. and Rutherford, M.A. (1999). Beyond Resources: The Mediating Effect of Top Management Discretion and Values on Corporate Philanthropy. Business & Society, 38(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800203. [Google Scholar]
  13. Campbell, D. and Slack, R. (2008). Corporate ‘Philanthropy Strategy’ and ‘Strategic Philanthropy’: Some Insights From Voluntary Disclosures in Annual Reports. Business & Society, 47(2), 187–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650306297941. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen, J.C. and Roberts, R.W. (2010). Toward a more coherent understanding of the organization–society relationship: A theoretical consideration for social and environmental accounting research. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(4), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0531-0. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chojnacka, E. and Wiśniewska, J. (2016). Benefits of corporate social responsibility engagement in companies: the case of Poland. Journal of Management and Business Administration, 24(4), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.7206/jmba.ce.2450-7814.181. [Google Scholar]
  16. Costa, E. and Pesci, C. (2016). Social impact measurement: why do stakeholders matter? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 7(1), 99–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2014-0092. [Google Scholar]
  17. Donors Forum (2004). Jak jsme na tom s firemní filantropií v České republice? Výsledky výzkumu firemní filantropie. (How do we stand in the corporate philanthropy in the Czech Republic? Results of corporate philanthropy study). Obtained from: http://aa.ecn.cz/img_upload/65636e2e7a707261766f64616a737476/firemnifilantrop_vyzkum.doc (12 January 2020). [Google Scholar]
  18. Emerson, J. (2003). The Blended Value Proposition: Integrating Social and Financial Returns. California Management Review, 45(4), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166187. [Google Scholar]
  19. European Commission. (2015). User guide to the SME definition. Obtained from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/79c0ce87-f4dc-11e6-8a35-01aa75ed71a1 (10 January 2020). [Google Scholar]
  20. Frič, P. (2001). Giving And Volunteering In The Czech Republic. Obtained from:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40346192_darcovstvi_a_dobrovolnictvi_v_ceske_republice_vysledky_vyzkumu_nros_a_agnes (20 March 2020). [Google Scholar]
  21. Gan, A. (2006). The Impact of Public Scrutiny on Corporate Philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(3), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9087-4. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gautier, A. and Pache, A.-C. (2015). Research on Corporate Philanthropy: A Review and Assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 343–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1969-7. [Google Scholar]
  23. Godfrey, P.C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 777–798. https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amr.2005.18378878. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hanousek, J., Kočenda, E. and Svítková, K. (2010). Corporate philanthropy in the Czech and Slovak republics. Czech Journal of Economics and Finance (Finance a Uver), 60(2), 102–121. [Google Scholar]
  25. Heike Bruch, F.W. (2005). The Keys to Rethinking Corporate Philanthropy. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(1), 49–55. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hess, D., Rogovsky, N. and Dunfee, T.W. (2002). The Next Wave of Corporate Community Involvement: Corporate Social Initiatives. California Management Review, 44(2), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166125. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hlavacek, P. and Bal-Domanska, B. (2016). Impact of foreign direct investment on economic growth in Central and Eastern European countries. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 27(3). https://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.27.3.3914. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kolibová, H. (2016). The Potential for Regional Corporate Philanthropy. Rocznik Administracji Publicznej, 2. https://doi.org/10.4467/24497800RAP.16.001.5094. [Google Scholar]
  29. Keay, A. (2007). Tackling the Issue of the Corporate Objective: An Analysis of the United Kingdom’s ’Enlightened Shareholder Value Approach. Sydney Law Review, 29(4), 577–612. [Google Scholar]
  30. KPMG. (2017). Meet the heart of Europe. Investment in the Czech Republic. Obtained from: https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/cz/pdf/KPMG_Investment-in-Czech-Republic.pdf (21 January 2019). [Google Scholar]
  31. Liket, K. and Maas, K. (2016). Strategic Philanthropy: Corporate Measurement of Philanthropic Impacts as a Requirement for a ‘Happy Marriage’ of Business and Society. Business & Society, 55(6), 889–921. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650314565356. [Google Scholar]
  32. Maas, K. and Liket, K. (2011). Talk the Walk: Measuring the Impact of Strategic Philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3), 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0690-z. [Google Scholar]
  33. Marquis, C. and Lee, M. (2013). Who Is Governing Whom? Executives, Governance, and the Structure of Generosity in Large U.S. Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 483–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2028. [Google Scholar]
  34. Marx, J. D. (1996). Strategic philanthropy: an opportunity for partnership between corporations and health/human service agencies. Administration in Social Work, 20(3), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v20n03_04. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mohan-Neill, S.I. (1995). The influence of firm's age and size on its environmental scanning activities. Journal of Small Business Management, 33(4), 10. [Google Scholar]
  36. O’Brien, R.B. (2007). Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors, Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6. [Google Scholar]
  37. Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006). Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Obtained from: https://hbr.org/2006/12/strategy-and-society-the-link-between-competitive-advantage-and-corporate-social-responsibility (12 March 2018). [Google Scholar]
  38. Post, J.E. and Waddock, S.A. (1995). Strategic philanthropy and partnerships for economic progress, philanthropy and economic development. In: R.F. America (ed.), Philanthropy and Economic Development (pp.167–191). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Saiia, D.H., Carroll, A.B. and Buchholtz, A.K. (2003). Philanthropy as Strategy: When Corporate Charity ‘Begins at Home’. Business & Society, 42(2), 169–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650303042002002. [Google Scholar]
  40. Seifert, B., Morris, S.A. and Bartkus, B.R. (2003). Comparing Big Givers and Small Givers: Financial Correlates of Corporate Philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), 195–211, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024199411807. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sundaram, A.K. and Inkpen, A.C. (2004). Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”: A Reply. Organization Science, 15(3), 370–371. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0067. [Google Scholar]
  42. Šťastná, J., Fraňková, E. and Stránský, J. (2011). Závěrečná zpráva o činnosti 5. pracovní skupiny „Mapování způsobů měření dopadů sociálního podnikání“. Vyhodnocení pilotního ověření metodiky SROI v sociální firmě Modrý domeček, Řevnice. Obtained from: http://server.universium.cz/publikace/16a_zaverecna_zprava_PS_mereni.pdf (20 March 2017). [Google Scholar]
  43. Useem, M. (1988). Market and Institutional Factors in Corporate Contributions. California Management Review, 30(2), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166548. [Google Scholar]
  44. Valor, C. (2006). Why do managers give? Applying pro-social behavior theory to understand firm giving. International Review on Public and Non Profit Marketing, 3(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02893282. [Google Scholar]
  45. Válová, A. and Formánková, S. (2014). Corporate philanthropy in the Czech Republic. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12, 725–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00399-2. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang, H. and Qian, C. (2011). Corporate philanthropy and corporate financial performance: The roles of stakeholder response and political access. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1159–1181. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0548. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wójcik, P. (2016). How creating shared value differs from corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management and Business Administration, 24(2), 32–55. https://doi.org/10.7206/jmba.ce.2450-7814.168. [Google Scholar]
  48. Wójcik, P. (2018). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A literature overview and integrative framework. Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, 26(1), 121–148, https://doi.org/0.7206/jmba.ce.2450-7814.222 [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Drivers of Strategic Approach to Philanthropy in the Czech Republic. (2021). Drivers of Strategic Approach to Philanthropy in the Czech Republic. Central European Management Journal, 29(3), 86–113. https://doi.org/10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.55 (Original work published 10/2021AD)

MLA style

“Drivers Of Strategic Approach To Philanthropy In The Czech Republic”. 10/2021AD. Central European Management Journal, vol. 29, no. 3, 2021, pp. 86–113.

Chicago style

“Drivers Of Strategic Approach To Philanthropy In The Czech Republic”. Central European Management Journal, Central European Management Journal, 29, no. 3 (2021): 86–113. doi:10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.55.