Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Financial Giving of Foundations and Businesses to Environmental NGOs: The Role of Grantee’s Legitimacy

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper studies how foundations and businesses decide which environmental NGOs to fund. Since not all funding requests can be satisfied, donors have to evaluate applicants and select just a few. We argue that their selection is based on the evaluation of the applicant ENGO’s various aspects of “legitimacy” (Suchman, Acad Manage Rev, 20(3): 571–610, 1995). We test this claim by using data from 14 in-depth interviews with representatives of Greek foundations and businesses (banks and phone companies) which have funded flagship ENGOs over the period 2008–2010. We find that “moral legitimacy”, which taps on the normative evaluation of an organization by its audience, is the most important for all donors. On the other hand, “pragmatic legitimacy”, which rests on the donor’s self-interest calculations, was found to be more relevant for businesses than for foundations.

Résumé

Cet article étudie la façon dont les fondations et les entreprises choisissent les ONG environnementales qu’elles financent. Dans la mesure où toutes les demandes de fonds ne peuvent être satisfaites, les donateurs doivent évaluer les candidats pour n’en sélectionner que quelques-uns. Notre argument est que cette sélection s’effectue sur la base d’une évaluation de divers aspects de la «légitimité» des ONGE candidates. Nous testons cette hypothèse en utilisant les données de 14 entretiens poussés avec des représentants de fondations et d’entreprises (banques et téléphonie) grecques ayant apporté un soutien financier à des ONGE majeures sur la période 2008-2010. Nous avons découvert que la «légitimité morale», qui se fonde sur l’évaluation normative d’une organisation par son public, est le type de légitimité le plus important pour les donateurs. D’un autre côté, nous trouvons que la «légitimité pragmatique», qui repose sur les calculs d’intérêts propres du donateur, est plus pertinente pour les entreprises que pour les fondations.

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Beitrag wird untersucht, wie Stiftungen und Unternehmen entscheiden, welche nicht-staatlichen Umweltorganisationen sie finanziell unterstützen. Da nicht allen Förderanträgen zugestimmt werden kann, sind die Spender gezwungen, die Antragsteller zu bewerten und nur einige wenige von ihnen auszuwählen. Wir behaupten, dass die Auswahl beruhend auf einer Bewertung diverser Gesichtspunkte der „Legitimität“(Suchman 1995) dieser nicht-staatlichen Umweltorganisationen erfolgt. Wir prüfen diese Behauptung anhand von Daten aus 14 intensiven Befragungen mit Vertretern griechischer Stiftungen und Unternehmen (Banken und Telefongesellschaften), die führende nicht-staatliche Umweltorganisationen im Zeitraum von 2008 bis 2010 finanziell unterstützt haben. Wir kommen zu dem Ergebnis, dass die „moralische Legitimität“, die auf die normative Bewertung einer Organisation seitens ihrer Zielgruppe zurückgreift, den wichtigsten Faktor für alle Spender darstellt. Dahingegen war zu sehen, dass die „pragmatische Legitimität“, die auf Kalkulationen im eigenen Interesse des Spenders beruht, für Unternehmen relevanter ist als für Stiftungen.

Resumen

El presente documento estudia cómo las fundaciones y las empresas deciden qué ONG medioambientales financiar. Dado que no todas las solicitudes de financiación pueden ser satisfechas, los donantes tienen que evaluar a los solicitantes y seleccionar sólo unos pocos. Sostenemos que su selección se basa en la evaluación de los diversos aspectos de la ONG medioambiental solicitante con respecto a la “legitimidad” (Schuman 1995). Examinamos esta afirmación utilizando datos de 14 entrevistas en profundidad a representantes de fundaciones y empresas griegas (bancos y compañías telefónicas) que han financiado a las principales ONG medioambientales a lo largo del período 2008-2010. Encontramos que la “legitimidad moral”, que interviene en la evaluación normativa de una organización por su audiencia, es la más importante para todos los donantes. Por otro lado, se ha encontrado que la “legitimidad pragmática”, que depende de los cálculos egoístas del donante, es más relevante para las empresas que para las fundaciones.

摘要

本文研究了基金会和企业在资助致力于环境保护的非政府组织时,是如何选择资助对象的。由于无法满足所有资助请求,捐助方不得不对申请人进行评估,从中选择少许进行资助。我们认为,他们是对提出申请的环保非政府组织的“合法性”进行多方面的评估,再根据评估结果做出选择。我们对这一论断进行了检验,所用的数据来自对希腊基金会和企业(银行和电话公司)的代表进行的 14 次深入访谈,这些基金会和企业均在 2008-2010 年资助过一些著名的环保非政府组织。我们发现,所有捐助方都将“道德合法性”作为最重要的因素,而考量道德合法性的指标,则是一家组织的受众对该组织的规范性评价。另一方面,我们发现企业比基金会更加重视“实用合法性”,对于这一合法性的评估,则是基于捐助方对自身利益的考量。

ملخص

هذا البحث يدرس كيف تحدد المؤسسات و الأعمال التجارية المنظمات الغير حكومية(NGOs) البيئية التي تمولها. حيث إنه لا يمكن إرضاء كل طلبات التمويل ، الجهات المانحة يجب أن تقوم بتقييم المتقدمين وتختار عدد قليل. نحن نجادل إن اختيارهم يستند على تقييم جوانب “شرعية” مختلفة لمقدمي طلبات المنظمات البيئية الغير

حكومية (ENGO) (سوشمان1995). نحن نختبر هذا الإدعاء بإستخدام بيانات من14 مقابلات متعمقة مع ممثلي مؤسسات وشركات يونانية (بنوك شركات هواتف) التي قامت بتمويل المنظمات البيئية الغيرحكومية(ENGO) الرئيسية خلال الفترة 2008 - 2010، نجد أن “الشرعية الأخلاقية”، التي تستغل التقييم المعياري للمنظمة من قبل جمهورها، هو الأهم لجميع الجهات المانحة. من جهة أخرى تم العثور على “شرعية واقعية”، التي تقوم على حسابات المصلحة الذاتية للمتبرع ، لتكون أكثر ملاءمة للشركات أكثر من المؤسسات.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Also referred to as ‘normative legitimacy’ in most other accounts.

  2. Hoffman and Bertels (2009) report that of all the board members US ENGOs had in common with other organizations, 59.27 and 51.85 % had been with foundations and/or corporations (for the years 2000 and 2005, respectively).

  3. These are: WWF Greece; Hellenic Ornithological Society (EOE); Hellenic Society for the Protection of Nature (EEPF); Hellenic Society for the Protection of the Environment and the Cultural Heritage (Elliniki Etairia); Arktouros (bear protection); Kallisto (large carnivores’ protection); Archelon (sea turtle protection); Mom (seal protection); MEDASSET (sea turtle protection); Network Mediterranean SOS (Diktyo Mesogeios SOS).

  4. Thus the Greek for-profit donors included companies as diverse as a local fish company (offering fish leftovers to a sea-turtles’ rehabilitation centre) and a bank with a multi-million euros’ annual turnover which has supported more than one ENGO.

  5. The kind of “financial support” includes either “philanthropic” financial giving to ENGOs, where “money or products [are given] to public charities with few or no conditions and no expectation of direct, measurable benefit” (Galaskiewicz and Colman 2006, p. 181) and/or “strategic” (ibid. 189)/“transactional” collaborations where “there are explicit resource exchanges focused on specific activities”—such as cause-related marketing, events sponsoring etc—(Austin 2000, p. 71).

  6. The index’s value may range from “1” (i.e., each company supported any one of the ten ENGOs) to “10” (i.e., each company supported all ten ENGOs).

  7. In two cases, two individuals from the same company attended the meeting and were thus jointly interviewed.

References

  • Arts, B. (2002). Green alliances’ of business and NGOs. New styles of self-regulation or ‘dead-end roads’? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9(1), 26–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 69–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, M. (2008). The liberal foundations of environmentalism: Revisiting the Rockefeller-Ford connection. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 19(2), 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baur, D., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The moral legitimacy of NGOs as partners of corporations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(4), 579–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baur, D., & Schmitz, H. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berglind, M., & Nakata, C. (2005). Cause-related marketing: More buck than bang? Business Horizons, 48(5), 443–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. The Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botetzagias, I. (2006). NGOs and civil society, a troubled relation? The case of the Greek environmental NGOs. Greek Political Science Review, 27, 71–95. (in Greek).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. A. (2005). Exploring the association between board and organizational performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(3), 317–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brulle, R. J. (2000). Agency, democracy, and nature: The US environmental movement from a critical theory perspective. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brulle, R. J., & Jenkins, J. C. (2005). Decline or transition? Discourse and strategy in the US environmental movement. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Sociological Association, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Brulle, R. J. & Schafer Caniglia, B. (1999). Money for nature: A network analysis of foundations and environmental groups (Working Paper and Technical Report Series, 2000-01). Notre Dame, IN, USA: University of Notre Dame.

  • Carter, N. (2001). The politics of the environment: Ideas, activism, policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chartier, D., & Deleage, J.-P. (1998). ‘The international environmental NGOs: From the revolutionary alternative to the pragmatism of reform. Environmental Politics, 7(3), 26–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delfin, F. G., Jr, & Tang, S. (2007). Elitism, pluralism, or resource dependency: patterns of environmental philanthropy among private foundations in California. Environment and Planning A, 39(9), 2167–2186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delfin, F. G., Jr, & Tang, S. Y. (2008). Foundation Impact on Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations: The Grantees’ Perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(4), 603–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diani, M., & Donati, P. R. (1999). Organisational change in western European environmental groups: A framework for analysis. Environmental Politics, 8(1), 13–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowie, M. (2002). American foundations: An investigative history. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S., Downs, D., Hernes, H. K., & Schlosberg, D. (2003). Green states and social movements: Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eweje, G., & Palakshappa, N. (2009). Business partnerships with nonprofits: working to solve mutual problems in New Zealand. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16(6), 337–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J. (1985). Interorganizational relations. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galaskiewicz, J., & Colman, M. S. (2006). Collaboration between corporations and nonprofit organizations. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 180–206). London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graf, N. F. S., & Rothlauf, F. (2011). The why and how of firm-NGO collaborations. (Working papers in information systems and business administration). Mainz, Germany: Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz. Retrieved January 3, 2012, from http://wi.bwl.uni-mainz.de/publikationen/WP-04-2011.pdf).

  • Heap, S. (2000). NGO-Business partnerships. Public Management Review, 2(4), 555–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. The Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A., & Bertels, S. (2009). Who is part of the environmental Movement? Assessing network linkages between NGOs and corporations (Ross School of Business Working Paper No. 1125) Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Retrieved January 3, 2012, from: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/61512).

  • Holmes, G. (2011). Conservation’s friends in high places: Neoliberalism, networks, and the transnational conservation elite. Global Environmental Politics, 11(4), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, C. (1987). Nonprofit organizations and political advocacy. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 296–318). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jepson, P. (2005). Governance and accountability of environmental NGOs. Environmental Science & Policy, 8, 515–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriesi, H. (1996). The organizational structure of new social movements in a political context. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 152–184). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37(1), 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lister, S. (2000). Power in Partnership? An analysis of an NGO’S relationships with its partners. Journal of International Development, 12, 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowry, R. C. (1999). Foundation patronage toward citizen groups and think tanks: Who Gets grants? The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 758–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucea, R. (2010). How we see them versus how they see themselves: A cognitive perspective of firm—NGO relationships. Business & Society, 49(1), 116–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2011). Greenwash: corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1), 3–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, K. I. (2010). The devil is in the (bio) diversity: Private sector ‘engagement’ and the restructuring of biodiversity conservation. Antipode, 42(3), 513–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Reviews in Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. D., & Rowan, B. (1991). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as Myth and ceremony’. In W. W. Powell & P. G. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 41–62). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller-Millesen, J. L. (2003). Understanding the behavior of nonprofit boards of directors: A theory-based approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 521–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C., Mertig, A. G., & Dunlap, R. E. (1991). Twenty years of environmental mobilization: Trends among national environmental organizations. Society & Natural Resources, 4(3), 219–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G. (1980). Board power and organizational effectiveness among human service agencies. Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 221–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramutsindela, M. (2010). The interconnections between environmental philanthropy and business: insights from the Southern African Nature Foundation. Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa, 70, 54–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reith, S. (2010). Money, power, and donor-NGO partnerships. Development in Practice, 20(3), 446–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rondinelli, D. A., & London, T. (2003). How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. Academy of Management Executive, 17(1), 61–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rootes, C. A. (1999). Environmental movements: local, national and global. London, England: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagawa, S., & Segal, E. (2000). Common interest, common good: Creating value through business and social sector partnerships. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seitanidi, M., & Crane, A. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 413–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirrat, R. L., & Henkel, H. (1997). The development gift: the problem of reciprocity in the NGO world. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 554, 66–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valor, C., & Merino de Diego, A. (2009). Relationship of business and NGOs: an empirical analysis of strategies and mediators of their private relationship. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(2), 110–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Heijden, H.-A. (1999). Environmental movements, ecological modernization and political opportunity structures. Environmental Politics, 8(1), 199–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Environmental Policy and Strategic Environmental Management, Department of Environment, University of the Aegean, 81100, Mytilene, Greece

    Iosif Botetzagias & Eirini Koutiva

Authors
  1. Iosif Botetzagias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eirini Koutiva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iosif Botetzagias.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Botetzagias, I., Koutiva, E. Financial Giving of Foundations and Businesses to Environmental NGOs: The Role of Grantee’s Legitimacy. Voluntas 25, 281–306 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9338-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9338-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation