Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate Philanthropic Giving Practices in U.S. School Education

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

Abstract

While corporate philanthropic giving to education is a controversial topic, how much money corporate foundations (CFs) provide to U.S. primary and secondary education, what policy and geographic areas CFs fund, who makes grant decisions within CFs, and corporate philanthropists’ reported giving motivations are unknown. A quantitative survey was used to gather data on 49 Fortune 500 CFs giving to primary and secondary U.S. education. Survey findings indicate that (a) the amount of money that these 49 CFs provide to primary and secondary U.S. education is 0.10 % of the 2010 education budget; (b) CFs report funding across different policy areas, avoiding school choice; (c) CFs favor funding cities or districts, individual schools, and individual students over state and national level funding; (d) the foundation president is more likely to make grantmaking decisions than the company CEO; and (e) corporate philanthropists report giving to primary and secondary U.S. education to build a strong workforce and improve community relations. Findings provide insight into the role of corporate philanthropy in primary and secondary U.S. education and have implications for policy.

Résumé

Le don philanthropique d’entreprise au système éducatif est un sujet controversé. Pourtant, les sommes que les fondations d’entreprise versent pour l’enseignement primaire et secondaire aux États-Unis, la politique et les zones géographiques que ces fondations financent, l’identité des personnes qui décident des subventions au sein de ces fondations, ainsi que ce qui motive les philanthropes d’entreprise à faire des dons restent des inconnues. Une étude quantitative a été utilisée pour récolter des données sur les dons faits par 49 fondations d’entreprises du classement Fortune 500 à l’enseignement primaire et secondaire aux États-Unis. Cette étude permet les constats suivants : (a) les sommes que ces 49 fondations versent pour l’enseignement primaire et secondaire aux États-Unis constituent 0,1 % du budget alloué à l’éducation en 2010; (b) les fondations indiquent donner dans des zones aux politiques différentes en évitant de choisir des écoles; (c) les fondations donnent aux villes et aux districts ainsi qu’individuellement aux écoles et aux étudiants plutôt qu’aux niveaux des états et du pays; (d) les décisions de subventionnement sont davantage prises par les présidents des fondations que par les PDG des entreprises; et (e) les philanthropes d’entreprise indiquent donner à l’enseignement primaire et secondaire des É.U. pour former une population active solide et améliorer la relation avec le public. Ces conclusions donnent un aperçu du rôle de la philanthropie d’entreprise pour l’enseignement primaire et secondaire aux États-Unis et ont des implications en termes de politique.

Zusammenfassung

Philanthropische Unternehmensspenden an Bildungseinrichtungen sind an sich ein kontroverses Thema; und es ist nicht bekannt, wie hoch die Spendenbeträge von Unternehmensstiftungen an Grund- und weiterführende Schulen in den USA sind, welche politischen und geografischen Bereiche von den Unternehmensstiftungen finanziert werden, wer innerhalb der Stiftungen die Entscheidungen über Spenden trifft und welche Spendenmotivationen von den philanthropischen Unternehmen angegeben werden. Mittels einer quantitativen Umfrage wurden Daten über 49 Fortune-500-Unternehmensstiftungen gesammelt, die Spenden an Grund- und weiterführende Schulen in den USA leisten. Laut Umfrageergebnissen (a) entspricht der Betrag, den diese 49 Unternehmensstiftungen an Grund- und weiterführende Schulen in den USA bereitstellen, 0,10 % des Bildungsbudgets für 2010; (b) geben die Unternehmensstiftungen an, Finanzmittel für verschiedene politische Bereiche bereitzustellen und eine Auswahl von Schulen zu vermeiden; (c) bevorzugen die Unternehmensstiftungen die finanzielle Unterstützung von Städten bzw. Bezirken, individuellen Schulen und Schülern gegenüber einer Mittelbereitstellung auf staatlicher oder nationaler Ebene; (d) liegt die Wahrscheinlichkeit höher, dass der Direktor anstelle des Geschäftsführers der Stiftung Entscheidungen hinsichtlich der Spenden trifft; (e) geben philanthropische Unternehmen an, Spenden an Grund- und weiterführende Schulen in den USA bereitzustellen, um so leistungsstarke Arbeitskräfte zu schaffen und die Bürgerbeziehungen zu fördern. Die Ergebnisse verschaffen einen Einblick in die Rolle der Unternehmensphilanthropie für die Grund- und weiterführende Schulbildung in den USA und zeigen politische Implikationen.

Resumen

Aunque la donación filantrópica corporativa a la educación es un tema controvertido, se desconoce cuánto dinero proporcionan las fundaciones corporativas (CF, del inglés corporate foundation) a la educación primaria y secundaria estadounidense, qué política y áreas geográficas financian las CF, quién toma las decisiones en las CF. Se utilizó una encuesta cuantitativa para recopilar datos sobre 49 CF de las 500 de Fortune que hacen donaciones a la educación primaria y secundaria estadounidense. Los hallazgos de la encuesta indican que (a) la cantidad de dinero que estas 49 CF proporcionan a la educación primaria y secundaria estadounidense es el 0,10 % del presupuesto de educación de 2010; (b) las CF informan de financiación en diferentes áreas políticas, evitando la elección de escuela; (c) las CF favorecen la financiación de ciudades o distritos, escuelas individuales y estudiantes individuales por encima de la financiación a nivel estatal y nacional; (d) el presidente de la fundación es más probable que tome decisiones sobre la concesión de subvenciones que el CEO de la compañía; y (e) los filántropos corporativos informan de que la donación a la educación primaria y secundaria estadounidense crea una fuerza de trabajo potente y mejora las relaciones comunitarias. Los hallazgos proporcionan percepción de la función de la filantropía corporativa en la educación primaria y secundaria estadounidense y tienen implicaciones para la política.

Chinese

企业对教育事业的慈善捐赠一直是一个颇具争议性的话题,但是以下问题一直还是不为人们所知:企业基金会向美国中小学教育提供了多少资金,企业基金会所资助的地理区域和政策是什么,企业基金会中做拨款决定的是哪些人,企业慈善家的捐赠动机是什么?我们采用定量调查方法,收集了49家《财富》500强企业的基金会向美国中小学教育做捐赠的数据。调查结果显示:(a)这49家企业基金会为美国中小学教育所捐赠的资金占2010年教育预算的0.10 %;(b)根据企业基金会的报告,资助范围覆盖不同的政策区域,避免选择学校;(c)相对于全国层次的资助,企业基金会更偏爱资助城市或地区、私立学校、个体学生;(d)相对于企业CEO,通常做捐赠决定的更多是基金会主席;(e)企业慈善家对美国中小学教育的捐赠,是为了增强劳动力和改善社区关系。研究结果帮助人们更深刻理解针对美国中小学教育的企业慈善,并对政策制定具有参考意义。

Arabic

بينما عطاء الشركات الخيرية في التعليم هو موضوع مثير للجدل ، كم من المال تقدم مؤسسات شركات (CFS) للتعليم الإبتدائي والثانوي في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية ، ما هي السياسة وتمويل مؤسسات الشركات(CF) لمناطق جغرافية ، من الذي يأخذ قرارات المنح ضمن مؤسسات الشركات (CFS) ،الدوافع للعطاء غير معروف. تم إستخدام إستطلاع الرأي الكمي لجمع بيانات عن 49 فورتشن (Fortune 500) مؤسسات شركات (CFS) تعطي للتعليم الابتدائي والثانوي في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية. نتائج إستطلاع الرأي تشير إلى أن (أ) مبلغ المال الذي تقدمه هذه ال 49 مؤسسات شركات (CFS) للتعليم الإبتدائي والثانوي في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية هو 0.10٪ من ميزانية التعليم لعام 2010؛ (ب) تقرير مؤسسات شركات (CFS) عن التمويل عبرمختلف مجالات السياسة ، تجنب إختيار المدرسة ، (ج) مؤسسات شركات (CFS) تفضل تمويل المدن أو المقاطعات ٬المدارس الفردية، وطلاب على تمويل الولاية و المستوى الوطني ، (د) رئيس المؤسسة هو أكثر عرضة لإتخاذ قرارات مانحة عن الرئيس التنفيذي للشركة ، و (ه) الشركات الخيرية تذكر إنها تعطي التعليم الإبتدائي والثانوي الأمريكي لبناء قوة عاملة قوية و تحسين العلاقات المجتمعية. النتائج تقدم نظرة ثاقبة على دور العمل الخيري للشركات في التعليم الابتدائي والثانوي في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية و يكون له آثارعلى السياسة.

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. The study received Use of Human Subjects in Research ethics approval. Participants provided their informed consent to participate in the study.

  2. The Fortune 500 is a yearly list ranking publicly-held U.S. companies by their gross revenue.

  3. A 501(c)3 is a United States Internal Revenue Service status providing tax exemption for organizations, including corporations that conduct charitable activities.

  4. This refers to assessing student performance and accountability systems for results for schools, teachers, and students.

  5. These STEM-related industries are electronics/electrical equipment; industrial and farm equipment; office equipment/computers; telecommunications; energy; semiconductors and other electronic components; pharmaceutical; aerospace and defense; chemicals; building materials; health care; metals; and scientific, photographic control equipment and are a slightly simplified version of the Fortune 500 STEM industry categories.

References

  • A report on the Goldman Sachs Foundation signature initiative “developing high-potential youth”. (2005). Goldman Sachs Foundation.

  • Abowitz, K. K. (2000). Democratic communities and business/education “Partnerships” in secondary education. Urban Review, 32(4), 313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, N. (2010). How the Chronicle’s annual survey of giving by America’s largest corporations was compiled. The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

  • Bell McKenzie, K., & Joseph Scheurich, J. (2004). The corporatizing and privatizing of schooling: A call for grounded critical praxis. Educational Theory, 54(4), 431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berenbeim, R. (1991). Corporate support of national education goals. New York: Conference Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyles, D. (1998). Corporate culture and schools: Consultants in search of new markets. American education and corporations: The free market goes to school (p. 218). New York: Garland Publ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyles, D. (2005). Schools or markets?: Commercialism, privatization, and school-business partnerships. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. (2006). Institutional analysis and the paradox of corporate social responsibility. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 925–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie Corp. of New York, NY. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. The report of the task force on teaching as a profession. New York: Carnegie Corp. of New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrigan, M. (1997). The great corporate give-away—can marketing do good for the ‘do-gooders’? European Business Journal, 9(4), 4046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center, Foundation. (2009). National directory of corporate giving. New York: Foundation Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center, Foundation. (2011). Key facts on corporate foundations. New York: Foundation Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, G. (2012). Deciphering Mitt-speak on schools (p. 21). New York: New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crampton, W., & Patten, D. (2008). Social responsiveness, profitability and catastrophic events: Evidence on the corporate philanthropic response to 9/11. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 863–873. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9553-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (1983). Corporate involvement in public schools: A practitioner-academic’s perspective. Teachers College Record, 85(2), 183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2004). The blackboard and the bottom line: Why schools can’t be businesses. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Saussure, F., Bouquet, S., Engler, R., & Weil, A. (2002). Ecrits de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, M. (2012). Public education finances: 2010 (No. G10-ASPEF). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foundation Center. (2013). Aggregate fiscal data of grants from FC 1000 foundations, for education, 2011. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from http://data.foundationcenter.org/#/fc1000/subject:education/all/total/list/2011.

  • Frumkin, P. (2006). Strategic giving: The art and science of philanthropy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fry, L. W., Keim, G. D., & Meiners, R. E. (1982). Corporate contributions: Altruistic or for-profit? Academy of Management Journal, 25(1), 94–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelberg, D. (1997). The “business” of reforming American schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Himmelstein, J. L. (1997). Looking good and doing good: Corporate philanthropy and corporate power. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, P. (2012). A battle between education and business goals. New York: The New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: Mega states: An analysis of Student Performance in the five most Heavily Populated states in the nation (No. 450). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nocera, J. (2012). In Chicago, it’s a mess, all right (p. A23). New York: New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrower, F. (2004). Attitudes and practices concerning effective philanthropy. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (1999a). Philanthropy’s new agenda: Creating value. Harvard Business Review, 77, 121–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (1999b). Philanthropy’s new agenda: Creating value. Harvard Business Review, 77(6), 121–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipps, D. (2006). School reform, corporate style: Chicago, 1880–2000. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timpane, P. M., & McNeill, L. M. (1991). Business impact on education and child development reform: A study prepared for the committee for economic development. New York: Committee for Economic Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Top U.S. foundations awarding grants for education, circa 2008. (2009). New York, NY: Foundation Center.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Leila Morsy

    Present address: School of Education, University of New South Wales, Goodsell Building, 1st Floor, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard University Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    Leila Morsy

Authors
  1. Leila Morsy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leila Morsy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morsy, L. Corporate Philanthropic Giving Practices in U.S. School Education. Voluntas 26, 1510–1528 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9474-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9474-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation