Abstract
Treating corporate contributions as purchases of valuable inputs, we hypothesize that firms for which genetic diversity, advertizing, and reputations of environmental responsibility are more valuable and firms for which the cost of contributing is less will be more likely contributors to the Nature Conservancy. These hypotheses are supported by logit estimations which find firms in industries where biological inputs are important, firms with high advertizing expenditures, firms in industries with high costs of meeting environmental regulations, and large firms are more likely to contribute and so become Corporate Associates of the Nature Conservancy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brown, G. Jr., and Swierzbinski, J. (1982). Endangered species, genetic capital and cost reducing R & D. Department of Economics. University of Washington. Discussion Paper No. 82-9.
Holden, C. (1980). Reagan years: Environmentalists tremble. Science 210 (November 28): 988–991.
Klein, B., and Leffler, K. (1981). The role of market forces in assuring contractual performance. Journal of Political Economy 89 (August): 615–641.
Nature Conservancy. (Series). Natural assets: A report of corporate achievements in land conservation. Arlington, Virginia.
Nature Conservancy. (1983). Background information. Arlington, Virginia. (Release No. 2-83).
Nelson, R.L. (1970). Economic factors in the growth of corporate giving. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Nerlove, M., and Press, S.J. (1976). Multivariate log-linear probability models for the analysis of qualitative data. Center for Statistics and Probability. Northwestern University. Discussion Paper 1.
Olson, M. Jr., and Zeckhauser, R. (1966). An economic theory of alliances. Review of Economics and Statistics 48 (August): 266–279.
Schmalensee, R. (1972). The economics of advertising. London: North-Holland.
U.S. Congress. (1981). Impacts of applied genetics: Microorganisms, plants, and animals — Summary. Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1982). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1982–83, 103rd Edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1983). Pollution abatement costs and expenditures, 1981. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1978, 1981). Economic dislocation early warning system fourth-quarter report. Washington, D.C. (Typewritten).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This article is based upon a portion of Griffith's dissertation at NCSU. Thanks go to Tom Perry, Hugh Devine, Jan Laarman, and Gordon Tullock for their comments and encouragement and to the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Technologico of Brazil for financial support.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Griffith, J.J., Knoeber, C.R. Why do corporations contribute to the Nature Conservancy?. Public Choice 49, 69–77 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00163531
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00163531