Abstract
While an increasing number of philosophers and community activists argue in favor of corporate philanthropy, the practice is not without its critics. A number of firms that have restated suspect earnings also appear on lists of top corporate givers or are ranked among most ethical firms, prompting the suspicion that companies are using philanthropy as a kind of moral window-dressing. This paper explores whether restating firms are (1) using philanthropy to divert public attention away from suspect financial results; or (2) making donations to buy good will or a better reputation after they have been required to restate suspect earnings. Our results paint a mixed picture of the morality of corporate philanthropy. Firms forced to restate suspect earnings do seem to be using philanthropy either to divert attention away from their lackluster earnings or to elicit good will from the large community after such restatements. However, the reverse is not true. Just because a firm is a top giver, it does not follow that it is more likely to be a restater of earnings. Nor did we find evidence that firms ranked as very ethical are more likely to be restaters than non-restaters. Firms engage in philanthropy for a variety of reasons. We should not uncritically praise them for their giving, but neither should we regard with a cynical eye all corporate reputations for goodness or all corporation donations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Milton Friedman and his supporters are seen as proponents of shareholder theory. Those ethicists who believe that the company has a moral duty to promote the welfare of those who either significantly affect or affected by the firm are proponents of the stakeholder theory of the corporation. The differences between these models are both significant and subtle. However, for purposes of this paper, we do not distinguish between the two views for we have no way of ascertaining whether those in charge of a given company’s corporate giving programs hold one view or the other. Controlling for this difference in views would be interesting but not, in our view, easily accomplished.
HealthSouth did eventually succeed in firing Scrushy as CEO and getting him off the board, but not without a protracted fight.
For purposes of this analysis, we have not separated the two categories or morality and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Both social responsibility and morality clearly play a role in Business Ethics rankings. A firm that produced bombs would not be ranked high, regardless of whether it made bombs in an environmentally sound way, because such a firm would be perceived as immoral. Conversely, a firm that scrupulously treated its employees well, but did little for other stakeholders would be ranked low because, while a moral firm, it would not qualify as socially responsible.
References
Bartkus, B. R., Morris, S. A., & Siefert, B. (2002). Governance and corporate philanthropy: Restraining Robin Hood? Business & Society, 41(3), 319–344.
Beck, R. (2005, July 5). Jury still out on ‘I didn’t know’ defense. Seattle Times. Available at seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002357488_exectrials05.htm.
Belsie, L. (2005, September 14). Corporate philanthropy as ethical indicator. Christian Science Monitor.
Berkowitz, B. (2005, October 12). Philanthropy the Wal-Mart way. Media Transparency. Available at www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=88.
Black, W. K. (2001). Why do the non-heathens rage? Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 8(3), 225–276.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.
BusinessWeek Online. (2003, December 1). The corporate donors. Special Report.
Business Ethics. (2004). 100 best corporate citizens for 2004 (Vol. 18, No. 1).
CSRWire.com. (2005, October 28). Corporate philanthropy adds to shareholder wealth.
Epstein, K. (2005). Philanthropy, Inc. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer, pp. 1–30.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–258.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Harned, P. J. (2005). A word from the president: Corporate social responsibility and organizational ethics. Ethics Today Online, 3(9), 1–2.
Harrow, J., Palmer, P., & Bogdanova, M. (2006). Business giving, the tsunami and corporates as rock stars: Some implications for arts funding? Cultural Trends, 15(4), 299–323.
Hart, S. L., Gautam, A., & Arbor, A. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5, 30–37.
Iannou, L. (2003, May 26). Corporate America’s social conscience. Fortune, special report. Available at http://www.fortune.com/fortune/services/sections/fortune/corp/2003_05csr.html.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268–305.
Moore, G., & Robson, A. (2002). The UK supermarket industry: An analysis of corporate social and financial performance. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(1), 5–39.
Morris, K. (1999). The reincarnation of Mike Milken. Business Week, 10, 94–95.
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). (2005, September). The Waltons and Wal-Mart: Self-interested philanthropy. Washington: NCRP
Orlitzky, M. (2001). Does firm size confound the relationship between corporate social performance and firm financial performance? Journal of Business Ethics, 33, 167–180.
Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business & Society, 40(4), 369–396.
Paiste, D. (2005, September 26). Schools: Tyco gifts untainted despite Kozlowski’s conviction. New Hampshire Union Leader.
Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. (1996). The association between corporate social-responsibility and financial performance: The paradox of social cost. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 321–357.
Porter, M. E. (2002). Tomorrow’s markets: Global trends and their implications for business. World Bank (p. 4).
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002, December). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review (pp. 56–68).
Reeves, J. (2005, June 28). Jury Acquits former HealthSouth CEO scrushy. Associated Press. Avaliable at www.ecommercetimes.com/story/4425.html.
Ruf, B. M., Muralidhar, K., Brown, R. M., Janney, J. J., & Paul, K. (2001). An empirical investigation of the relationship between change in corporate social performance and financial performance: A stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 32, 143–156.
Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy: When corporate charity “begins at home. Business and Society, 42(2), 169–201.
Seifert, B., Morris, S. A., & Bartkus, B. R. (2004). Having, giving, and getting: Slack resources, corporate philanthropy, and firm financial performance. Business and Society, 43(2), 135–161.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.
Simpson, G. W., & Kohers, T. (2002). The link between corporate social and financial performance: Evidence from the banking industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 97–109.
Voronin, Y. A. (1998). Organized crime: Its influence on international security and urban community life in the industrial cities of the rurals. Comparative Urban Studies Project Occasional Paper, No. 17, published by Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Washington Post. (2002, September 15). Charities struggle with scandal-tainted donations.
Williams, R. J., & Barrett, J. D. (2000). Corporate philanthropy, criminal activity, and firm reputation: Is there a link? Journal of Business Ethics, 26(4), 341–350.
Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G. (1990). Contextual influence on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 43–55.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koehn, D., Ueng, J. Is philanthropy being used by corporate wrongdoers to buy good will?. J Manag Gov 14, 1–16 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-009-9087-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-009-9087-8