Abstract
In this chapter, we examine an alternate model of corporate foundation that inverts the control and equity relationship between firm and foundation. While other scholars have called them “industrial foundations” or “foundation-owned companies,” we label this model the “shareholder foundation” because the founder of the company typically donates all his shares to a newly formed philanthropic foundation, making it full or majority owner of the company. The peculiar features of shareholder foundations give rise to a different set of governance challenges compared with conventional corporate foundations. While there are no a priori trade-offs between the pursuit of profit and public good with this model, it faces institutional complexity as its leaders deal with competing expectations and claims from firm representatives, family members, and philanthropy recipients. Using an inductive case comparison approach of nine shareholder foundations across three countries (Denmark, Germany, and France), we bring to the foreground the impact of the national institutional environment on foundation governance, linking it to the types of decisions that managers will make when facing situations with competing objectives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This regulation stems from a concern of foundations being used as tax shelters for firms and their owners, within a broader context of political attack on foundations (Zunz 2012).
- 2.
In some of the cases studied, the drafting of dividend policy occurred at the firm level rather than at the foundation level; nonetheless, in all of those firms, dividend policy had to be approved by the foundation or by its representative body.
- 3.
A precise account of the number of shareholder foundations is difficult, given that many of them are protective about their activities and organization.
- 4.
As of 2017, a fourth foundation named Avril, owner of the agricultural conglomerate SofiProtéol, has been established. Yet this case slightly differs from the three cited above, as the family dimension is absent – the company regroups several cooperatives in which farmers are coinvestors.
References
ADMICAL. (2016). Le mécénat d’entreprise en France Résultats complets de l’enquête Admical – CSA. ADMICAL: Paris, France.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
Billis, D. (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bundesverband Deutscher Stiftungen. (2016). Stiftungserrichtungen 1990–2015 in Deutschland. Statistiken 2016. Available at: https://www.stiftungen.org/no_cache/de/forschung-statistik/statistiken.html. Accessed 12 Nov 2016.
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Foundation Center. (2014). Foundation stats. Available at: data.foundationcenter.org. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In P. J. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In W. C. Zimmerli, M. Holzinger, & K. Richter (Eds.), Corporate ethics and corporate governance (pp. 173–178). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Gautier, A. (2018). Historically contested concepts: A conceptual history of philanthropy in France, 1712–1914. Theory and Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-018-09335-z.
Gautier, A., & Pache, A. C. (2015). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 343–369.
Greenwood, R., et al. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.
Hansmann, H., & Thomsen, S. (2013). Managerial distance and virtual ownership: The governance of industrial foundations. ECGI—Finance Working Paper, 372
Herrmann, M., & Franke, G. (2002). Performance and policy of foundation-owned firms in Germany. European Financial Management, 8(3), 261–279.
Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
Kodeih, F., & Greenwood, R. (2013). Responding to institutional complexity: The role of identity. Organization Studies, 35(1), 7–39.
Kronke, H. (1988). Stiftungstypus und Unternehmensträgerstiftung: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 545–564.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. M. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–68. 133.
Prophil. (2015). Les fondations actionnaires: Premiere etude Europeene. Paris, France.
Reay, T. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization Studies, 26(3), 351–384.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Sinani, E., et al. (2008). Corporate governance in Scandinavia: Comparing networks and formal institutions. European Management Review, 5(1), 27–40.
Skocpol, T., & Somers, M. (1980). The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22(2), 174–197.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
The Guardian. (2007). Q&A What is a corporate foundation? The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/jun/13/societyguardian.societyguardian2
Thomsen, S. (1999). Corporate ownership by industrial foundations. European Journal of Law and Economics, 7, 117–136.
Thomsen, S. (2006). Industrial foundations. In K. Prewitt et al. (Eds.), Legitimacy of philanthropic foundations: United States and European perspectives (pp. 236–251). New York, NY: The Russell Sage Foundation.
Thomsen, S. (2012). What do we know (and not know) about industrial foundations. Center for Corporate Governance: Copenhagen, Denmark.
Thomsen, S., & Rose, C. (2004). Foundation ownership and financial performance: Do companies need owners? European Journal of Law and Economics, 18(3), 343–364.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.
Thornton, P.H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Werbel, J. D., & Carter, S. M. (2002). The CEO’s influence on corporate foundation giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 40(1), 47–60.
Westhues, M., & Einwiller, S. (2006). Corporate foundations: Their role for corporate social responsibility. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(2), 144–153.
Zunz, O. (2012). Philanthropy in America: A history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bothello, J., Gautier, A., Pache, AC. (2020). Families, Firms, and Philanthropy: Shareholder Foundation Responses to Competing Goals. In: Roza, L., Bethmann, S., Meijs, L., von Schnurbein, G. (eds) Handbook on Corporate Foundations. Nonprofit and Civil Society Studies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25759-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25759-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25758-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25759-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)