Advertisement

Families, Firms, and Philanthropy: Shareholder Foundation Responses to Competing Goals

  • Joel BothelloEmail author
  • Arthur Gautier
  • Anne-Claire Pache
Chapter
Part of the Nonprofit and Civil Society Studies book series (NCSS)

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.

Keywords

Institutional complexity Hybrid organizations Corporate Governance Shareholder foundations 

References

  1. ADMICAL. (2016). Le mécénat d’entreprise en France Résultats complets de l’enquête Admical – CSA. ADMICAL: Paris, France.Google Scholar
  2. Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Billis, D. (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector: Challenges for practice, theory and policy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.
  6. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foundation Center. (2014). Foundation stats. Available at: data.foundationcenter.org. Accessed 31 Oct 2016.
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.
  12. Gautier, A., & Pache, A. C. (2015). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenwood, R., et al. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansmann, H., & Thomsen, S. (2013). Managerial distance and virtual ownership: The governance of industrial foundations. ECGI—Finance Working Paper, 372Google Scholar
  15. Herrmann, M., & Franke, G. (2002). Performance and policy of foundation-owned firms in Germany. European Financial Management, 8(3), 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kodeih, F., & Greenwood, R. (2013). Responding to institutional complexity: The role of identity. Organization Studies, 35(1), 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kronke, H. (1988). Stiftungstypus und Unternehmensträgerstiftung: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  20. Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 545–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. M. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–68. 133.Google Scholar
  25. Prophil. (2015). Les fondations actionnaires: Premiere etude Europeene. Paris, France.Google Scholar
  26. Reay, T. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health care in Alberta. Organization Studies, 26(3), 351–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Sinani, E., et al. (2008). Corporate governance in Scandinavia: Comparing networks and formal institutions. European Management Review, 5(1), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Skocpol, T., & Somers, M. (1980). The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22(2), 174–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. The Guardian. (2007). Q&A What is a corporate foundation? The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/jun/13/societyguardian.societyguardian2
  33. Thomsen, S. (1999). Corporate ownership by industrial foundations. European Journal of Law and Economics, 7, 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. Thomsen, S. (2012). What do we know (and not know) about industrial foundations. Center for Corporate Governance: Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  36. Thomsen, S., & Rose, C. (2004). Foundation ownership and financial performance: Do companies need owners? European Journal of Law and Economics, 18(3), 343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thornton, P.H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Google Scholar
  39. Werbel, J. D., & Carter, S. M. (2002). The CEO’s influence on corporate foundation giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 40(1), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Westhues, M., & Einwiller, S. (2006). Corporate foundations: Their role for corporate social responsibility. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(2), 144–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zunz, O. (2012). Philanthropy in America: A history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel Bothello
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arthur Gautier
    • 2
  • Anne-Claire Pache
    • 2
  1. 1.The John Molson School of BusinessConcordia UniversityMontréalCanada
  2. 2.ESSEC Business SchoolCergy-PontoiseFrance

Personalised recommendations