BIM en el contexto local

The reasons for providing support to the arts may not originate and be manifested

from within the company. This point was made during some of the interviews. The

following points focus on extrinsic motives on companies for support of the arts,

and include government and perceived societal factors.

5.4.1 Government initiatives

The following discussion focuses on the awareness of initiatives to support the arts

initiatives discussed in this section are AEA, AbaF, philanthropic foundations and

taxation.

No participants displayed an understanding of arts policy of the Australian Federal

Government or any other level of government, with only four representatives

stating that government support for the arts was patchy and insufficient. No

company participant discussed any initiatives originating at state level; two

mentioned working with local government but did not describe any initiatives with

which they were involved.

The corporate representatives reported that the AEA and AbaF were initiatives that

provided motivation for corporate support for the arts. Philanthropic foundations

and tax incentives were reported as being less important. These are all discussed in

this section.

Representatives from three companies reported that they supported the arts through

AEA – a model in which AEA seeks sponsorship for (usually) travelling exhibition

programs. (More details on the operation of AEA are given in Chapter Three). The

participant representatives of the companies who described their commitment as

being via this model revealed that it was not their only method of support for the

arts, but that it provided them with benefits that other models of support could not

As described in Chapter Three, AbaF is one mechanism implemented by the

Australian Federal Government to facilitate the private sector to take up ‘the

incentive’ and support the arts. Five of the participant companies reported an

association with AbaF. Representatives described their companies’ views of their

relationships with AbaF as helpful and in one instance it was considered as integral.

‘Helpful’ meant AbaF was able to provide guidance and ‘integral’ was where AbaF

became a part of a training program to deliver support to the arts. The balance of

companies did not express any intent to seek a relationship with AbaF, preferring

instead to find their own ways to support for arts.

The Australian Federal Government legalised a new form of charitable foundation,

the prescribed private fund (PPF) in 1999. Of the sample population, four

companies had charitable foundations, two established prior to the passing of the

legislation and two established after the legislation was passed. The participant

representatives from three of the companies in the sample stated their company had

not identified a need for a foundation or PPF and had no intention to set up either.

Of the four companies with a foundation or PPF, only one company used funding

from their foundation to provide support to the arts. The remaining representatives

from the three companies said that they would prefer the company retained direct

control over the funds allocated to arts organisations rather than transfer that

On the topic of taxation and what benefits the company may derive for its support

for not-for-profit arts organisations, the interviewees were less knowledgeable on

this topic. The participants explained decisions to support the not-for-profit sector

(regardless of sector or type), was made by either the Board or the CEO. The

interviewees were not financial managers but were aware that the company had

already made the decision to ‘allocate the funds’ and the management of financial

matters was handled by professional staff elsewhere in the company. The interview

participants were nominated by the companies as the people best suited to discuss

the selection, management and meanings of support to the not-for-profit sector.

5.4.2 Perceived societal factors

All the representatives reported that the number of applications for support received

outweighed any possibility of the companies being able to address them, especially

after external influences such as societal and external policy factors (beyond a

company’s control) were taken into consideration. One participant when asked

about the disproportion between the non-arts bodies their company supported over

the number of arts bodies, the representative C10, stated:

“This is because we have a higher priority to health and welfare programs.”

Four representatives shared the view that not all arts activities were worthy of

support. There were three key reasons for these views: there was no natural

alignment between the company and the arts organisation, the proposed project was

The response by participant representative C2, best summed up the sentiments of

interviewees who had to evaluate submissions for support:

“…we are not in any position to judge any one better than anyone else, so for that reason, we have adopted a policy of supporting a number of organisations and they do change from time to time… I don’t believe we as a corporation should act in that god-like position and say yes you need this more than anyone else.”

The private philanthropists who participated in the research study also recognised

the recent growth in demand for support and indicated that their specific support

was important because government had failed.

5.4.3 Perceived social responsibility

The public perception of the company – specifically, that it was respected as a good

corporate citizen – was an important consideration for all the participant

representatives. The concept was best described by company representatives C11

and C5, which were typical of all responses about the importance of corporate

social responsibility:

“…it is really part of our corporate strategy as much as anything to be seen as a good corporate citizen or community benefactors given that we are a foreign company and a major company at that and considered to be a wealthy company at that.”

and:

“From our point of view, we want to talk to those people but we want to show them we are good corporate citizens and we want to show them we do enjoy the fact we are giving back to the community. There is that commercial side of it that we are talking to a group of people and aligning our brand with what we think is something of interest to them…it provides input back into the community.”

The responses from the representatives of seven companies indicate that they report

their social responsibility using the annual reporting cycle, publications and

communications methods.