• Lonneke RozaEmail author
  • Steffen Bethmann
  • Lucas Meijs
  • Georg von Schnurbein
Part of the Nonprofit and Civil Society Studies book series (NCSS)


In the introduction, we set the context of this book on corporate foundations by discussing perspectives on corporate philanthropy and subsequently define how we view corporate foundations. Furthermore, we further elaborate on the role of understanding hybridity, and we outline the structure of the book.


Corporate foundations Comparative Hybridity Definitions 


  1. Aakhus, M., & Bzdak, M. (2012). Revisiting the role of “shared value” in the business-society relationship. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 31(2), 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adloff, F. (2010). Philanthropisches Handeln. Eine historische Soziologie des Stiftens in Deutschland und den USA. Frankfurt/New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  3. AL-Tabbaa, O., Leach, D., & March, J. (2013). Nonprofit-business collaboration as a strategic option for the nonprofit sector. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 1–22. Google Scholar
  4. Anheier, H. K. (2001). Foundations in Europe: A comparative perspective. In A. Schlueter, V. Then, & P. Walkenhorst (Eds.), Foundation handbook Europe (pp. 35–82). London: Directory of Social Change.Google Scholar
  5. Anheier, H. K. (2018). Philanthropic foundations in cross-national perspective: A comparative approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(12), 1591–1602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anheier, H. K., & Daly, S. (2006). The politics of foundations: A comparative analysis. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bethmann, S., & von Schnurbein, G. (2015). Effective Governance of Corporate Foundations. CEPS Working Paper Series No. 8. Basel: CEPS.Google Scholar
  8. Billis, D. (Ed.). (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory, and policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. (1999). Beyond resources: The mediating effect of top management discretion and values on corporate philanthropy. Business and Society, 38(2), 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burlingame, D., & Young, D. R. (Eds.). (1996). Corporate philanthropy at the crossroads. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, D., & Slack, R. (2007). The strategic use of corporate philanthropy: Building societies and demutualisation defences. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(4), 326–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cho, M., & Kelly, K.S. (2013) Corporate Donor–Charitable Organization Partners. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(4), 693–715.Google Scholar
  15. Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2007). The promise of a managerial values approach to corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Emerson, J. (2003). Where the money meets mission: Breaking down the firewall between foundation investments and programming. Stanford Social Innovation Review (Summer), 1, 38–47.Google Scholar
  18. Evers, A. (2005). Mixed welfare systems and hybrid organizations: Changes in the governance and provision of social services. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9/10), 737–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fombrun, C., Gardberg, N. A., & Barnett, M. L. (2000). Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Business and Society Review, 105, 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13 September SM17.Google Scholar
  21. Frumkin, P. (2006). Strategic giving. The art and science of philanthropy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gadberg, N., & Fombrun, C. (2006). Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets across institutional environments. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Galaskiewicz, J. (1997). An urban grants economy revisited: Corporate charitable contributions in the twin cities, 1979–81, 1987–89. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gan, A. (2006). The impact of public scrutiny on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(3), 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gautier, A., & Pache, A. C. (2015). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrow, J. (2013). Contested perspectives on corporate philanthropy. In K. Haynes, A. Murray, & J. Dillard (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility: A research handbook (pp. 234–254). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Harrow, J., Jung, T., & Phillips, S. D. (2016). Community foundations: Agility in the duality of foundation and community. In T. Jung, S. D. Phillips, & J. Harrow (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philanthropy (pp. 308–321). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Herlin, H., & Pedersen, J. T. (2013). Corporate foundations: Catalysts of NGO-business partnerships? Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2013(50), 58–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Joldersma, C., & Winter, V. (2002). Strategic management in hybrid organizations. Public Management Review, 4(1), 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karnani, A. (2011). Doing well by doing good: The grand illusion. California Management Review, 53(2), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klein, J., & Davar, N. (2003). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product-harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leat, D. (2016). Philanthropic foundations. Philanthropic foundations, public good and public policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Liket, K., & Simaens, A. (2015). Battling the devolution in the research on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lounsbury, M., & Boxenbaum, E. (Eds.). (2013). Institutional logics in action, research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 39).Google Scholar
  35. Margolis, J., Elfenbein H., & Walsh J. (2007). Does it pay to be good? A meta-analysis and redirection of research on the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Harvard University, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  36. Minkoff, D. (2002). The emergence of hybrid organizational forms: Combining identity-based service provision and political action. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 377–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nickel, P., & Eikenberry, A. (2009). A critique of the discourse of marketized philanthropy. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(7), 974–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Payton, R., & Moody, M. (2008). Understanding philanthropy. Its meaning and mission. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Peloza J. (2005). Corporate social responsibility as reputation insurance. Paper presented at the 2nd annual corporate social performance conference. Berkeley: Haas School of Business, University of California.Google Scholar
  41. Petrovits, C. (2006). Corporate-sponsored foundations and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 41(3), 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–68.Google Scholar
  43. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84, 78–92.Google Scholar
  44. Rey-García, M., Martín, C. J., Álvarez, G., & Luis, I. (2012). Assessing and advancing foundation transparency: Corporate foundations as a case study. The Foundation Review, 4(3), 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ribstein, L. E. (2005). Accountability and responsibility in corporate governance. Law and Economic Working Paper, University of Illinois Collage of Law, Paper no. 34.Google Scholar
  46. Roza, L., Shachar, I., Meijs, L.C.P.M., & Hustinx, L. (2017). The nonprofit case for corporate volunteering: a multi-level perspective. The Service Industries Journal, 37(11–12), 746–765.Google Scholar
  47. Salamon, L. (2014). Leverage for good: An introduction to the new frontiers of philanthropy and social investment. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Samuel, O., Roza, L., & Meijs, L. C. P. M. (2016). Exploring partnerships from the perspective of HSO beneficiaries: The case of corporate volunteering. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 40, 220–237.Google Scholar
  49. Sharfman, M. (1994). Changing institutional rules: The evolution of corporate philanthropy 1883–1953. Business & Society, 33(3), 236–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Skelcher, C., & Smith, S. R. (2014). Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public Administration, 93(2), 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith, S. R. (2016). Hybridity and philanthropy. In T. Jung, S. D. Phillips, & J. Harrow (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philanthropy (pp. 322–333). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Tesler, L.E., & Malone, R.E. (2008). Ethical Conduct in public and private arenas corporate philanthropy, lobbying and public health policy. American Journal of Public Health, 98(12), 2123-2133.Google Scholar
  53. Thornton, P.H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry.American Journal of Sociology, 105, 801–844.Google Scholar
  54. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Toepler, S. (1999). On the problem of defining foundations in a comparative perspective. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10(2), 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Von Schnurbein, G. (2015). Der Stifter als Unternehmer: Parallelen und Unterschiede der Philanthropie im 19. und 21. Jahrhundert. In S. Von Reden (Ed.), Stiftungen zwischen Politik und Wirtschaft: Geschichte und Gegenwart im Dialog, Beiheft Nr. 66 der Historischen Zeitschrift, 2015, 237–260.Google Scholar
  57. Von Schnurbein, G., Seele, P., & Lock, I. (2016). Rethinking the nexus of CSR and corporate philanthropy. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(2), 280–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Werbel, J., & Carter, S. (2002). The CEO’s influence on corporate foundation giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 40(1), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Westhues, M., & Einwiller, S. (2006). Corporate foundations: Their role for corporate social responsibility. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(2), 144–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Worth, M. J. (2018). Nonprofit management: Principles and practices (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lonneke Roza
    • 1
    Email author
  • Steffen Bethmann
    • 2
  • Lucas Meijs
    • 1
  • Georg von Schnurbein
    • 2
  1. 1.Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Center for Philanthropy Studies (CEPS), University of BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations