Outsourcing of Corporate Giving: What Corporations Can(’t) Gain When Using a Collective Corporate Foundation to Shape Corporate Philanthropy

  • Stephanie MaasEmail author
Part of the Nonprofit and Civil Society Studies book series (NCSS)


Recent years witnessed a diversification of the how of corporate philanthropy. The chapter distinguishes between in-house (direct) corporate giving and outsourced (indirect) corporate giving, bringing corporate philanthropy back to a make-or-buy decision. In addition, corporate donors can go down a collaborative path and participate in collective corporate foundations (CCFs): a corporate foundation serving the interests of multiple corporate donors simultaneously. The chapter examines the rationales of and consequences for corporations outsourcing corporate philanthropy by means of a CCF. The study entails a single instrumental case study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Primary data stems from 19 interviews with various stakeholders, including (former and non-) donor organizations. The study finds two rationales guiding corporate decision-makers facing the make-or-buy decision of corporate philanthropy: (1) available resources and (2) need for efficiency. Second, the study finds three consequences for corporations from utilizing a CCF for corporate giving: (1) loss of control, (2) loss of involvement, and (3) fewer organizational one-on-one residues. Third, the study identifies a trade-off between the identified rationales and consequences. The chapter concludes by relating the rationales back to a strategic management and an economic view on outsourcing and by discussing the study’s limitations as well as the implications for corporate decision-makers and beyond.


Outsourcing Qualitative research Collective giving Corporate philanthropy 


  1. Altuntas, C., & Turker, D. (2015). Local or global: Analyzing the internationalization of social responsibility of corporate foundations. International Marketing Review, 32(5), 540–557.Google Scholar
  2. Anheier, H. K. (2001). Foundations in Europe: A comparative perspective. In Foundations in Europe: Society, management and law (pp. 35–81). London: Directory of Social Change.Google Scholar
  3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.Google Scholar
  4. Carey, P., Subramaniam, N., & Ching, K. C. W. (2006). Internal audit outsourcing in Australia. Accounting and Finance, 46(1), 11–30.Google Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. DeltaPORT Donatiefonds. (2016). Annual report. [Online] Available at: Accessed 19 Jan 2017.
  7. Eikenberry, A. M. (2007). Philanthropy, voluntary association and governance beyond the state: Giving circles and challenges for democracy. Administration and Society, 39(7), 857–882.Google Scholar
  8. Eikenberry, A. M., & Breeze, B. (2015). Growing philanthropy through collaboration: The landscape of giving circles in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Voluntary Sector Review, 6(1), 41–59.Google Scholar
  9. Ferris, J., & Graddy, E. (1986). Contracting out: In what? With whom? Public Administration Review, 46(July/August), 332–344.Google Scholar
  10. Fourie, A., & Eloff, T. (2005). The case for collective business action to achieve systems change. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2005(18), 39–48.Google Scholar
  11. Frumkin, P. (2010). The essence of strategic giving: A practical guide for donors and fundraisers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gautier, A., & Pache, A. C. (2015). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 343–369.Google Scholar
  13. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Kumar, N. (2006). Make, buy, or ally: A transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 519–543.Google Scholar
  14. Greer, C. R., Youngblood, S. A., & Gray, D. A. (1999). Human resource management outsourcing: The make or buy decision. The Academy of Management Executive, 13(3), 85–96.Google Scholar
  15. Husted, B. W. (2003). Governance choices for corporate social responsibility: To contribute, collaborate or internalize? Long Range Planning, 36(5), 481–498.Google Scholar
  16. Industry Fabrics Foundation. (n.d.). About us. [Online] Available at: Accessed 9 Sept 2017.
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, L. (2015). Understanding the role of the broker in business non-profit collaboration. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(2), 201–220.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, J. N., Huynh, M. Q., Chi-wai, K. R., & Pi, S. M., (2000). The evolution of outsourcing research: What is the next issue? In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.Google Scholar
  20. Liket, K., & Simaens, A. (2015). Battling the devolution in the research on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 285–308.Google Scholar
  21. McIvor, R. (2009). How the transaction cost and resource-based theories of the firm inform outsourcing evaluation. Journal of Operations Management, 27(1), 45–61.Google Scholar
  22. Moody, M., Lugo Knapp, A., & Corrado, M. (2011). What is a family foundation? The Foundation Review, 3(4), 47–61.Google Scholar
  23. Ndubisi, N. O. (2011). Conflict handling, trust and commitment in outsourcing relationship: A Chinese and Indian study. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(1), 109–117.Google Scholar
  24. Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.Google Scholar
  25. Petrovits, C. M. (2006). Corporate-sponsored foundations and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 41(3), 335–362.Google Scholar
  26. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  27. Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15–34.Google Scholar
  28. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–68.Google Scholar
  29. Rey-Garcia, M., Martin-Cavanna, J., & Alvarez-Gonzalez, L. I. (2012). Assessing and advancing foundation transparency: Corporate foundations as a case study. The Foundation Review, 4(3), 77–89.Google Scholar
  30. Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the non-profit sector cross-nationally. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213–248.Google Scholar
  31. SBF Foundation. (2015). Welcome address by Mrs. Therese Foo. [Online] Available at: Accessed 28 Jan 2019.
  32. Shook, C. L., Adams, G. L., Ketchen, D. J., & Craihead, C. W. (2009). Towards a strategic toolbox for strategic sourcing. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14(1), 3–10.Google Scholar
  33. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Taylor, G. W., & Ussher, J. M. (2001). Making sense of S&M: A discourse analytic account. Sexualities, 4(3), 293–314.Google Scholar
  35. Toy Association. (n.d.). The Toy Association. [Online] Available at: Accessed 9 Sept 2017.
  36. Turnbull, J. (2002). Inside outsourcing. People management: Connected HR (pp. 10–11).Google Scholar
  37. Webb, N. J. (1994). Tax and government policy implications for corporate foundation giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(1), 41–67.Google Scholar
  38. Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications, a study in the economics of internal organization. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577.Google Scholar
  40. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations