Escenario General de la influencia de la estructura molecular en los parámetros de la

The main findings of this research are highlighted in this section. These findings are not intended to be generalisable, but rather selective and partial given the choice of participants, their narrations, my interpretations as the researcher and the knowledge constructed in the cultural setting of the research.

Creating favourable images of the giver

Bolstering the credibility of the giver clearly matters to both giver and receiver in the strategic management of corporate philanthropy. Corporate philanthropy

168 giving organisations are actively crafted by people who make allocation decisions regarding philanthropic contributions (giving-managers) and people who are primarily responsible for accepting those contributions (receiving- managers). This suggests that corporate philanthropy is less about achieving social outcomes and may be more about actively creating reputational outcomes for the giver.

Giving-managers’ narratives, unsurprisingly, seemed to concentrate on painting favourable images of their own corporate-giving organisations. In some cases, positive images of non-profit organisations were conjured up by giving- managers, but often apparently in an attempt to re-assert the notion that the giving-manager’s organisation contributes to ‘good’ and ‘worthy’ social causes. Another way giving-managers created positive images of their own corporate- giving organisations was by changing their narrative language to cast other funders in the institutional field of giving (other corporations, governments) as

‘inadequate’ servants of the grant-making sector. At times, this worked to

elevate and exaggerate the social status of the narrator’s corporate-giving organisation to that of ‘social hero’.

Evidence from the narratives demonstrates that receiving-managers uphold and boost a corporate-giving organisation’s social credibility by the extensive use of hyperbolic praise and reverence toward them. Indeed, this research project was one avenue for receiving-managers to advance the case for their philanthropic partner. Other avenues might include the media, public events and publically available reports. But the importance of this finding is that receiving-managers and non-profit organisations may, by necessity, be required to divert much of their energy into maintaining the ‘hand that feeds them’. This could, arguably, reduce their ability to perform their own organisation’s social objectives. This observation, of course, needs further empirical exploration. What is clear, is

169 their philanthropy from, a situation that became evident in the way they embellished the images of corporate-giving organisations.

Unequal control

That the corporate philanthropic relationship is unequal in its control of people and organisations, brings into question the ethicality of corporate philanthropy. Giving-managers indicated that the relationship between their corporate-giving organisations and the non-profit organisations they gave to could be considered

‘partnerships’. Yet, giving-managers are very clear that their giving is directed at non-profit organisations that fulfill a particular strategic brief which includes, but is not limited to, the desire to achieve social credibility from positive public announcements of their giving as previously mentioned. The choice of the term partnership to represent the nexus between corporate-giving organisation and non-profit organisation does not embody the giver-centric nature of the philanthropic relationship, nor does it signify the imbalance of motive to give out of self-interest which the narratives of giving-managers clearly indicate. Partnerships are fundamentally contributor directed.

However, critical to a research understanding of corporate philanthropy relationships, is the idea that non-profit organisations need to accept some accountability, since non-profit organisations appear to be currently submissive partners (thus possibly unwitting collaborators) in philanthropic relationships. There is a lack of resistance among receiving-managers, often unwilling to respond to the corporate-giving organisation’s desire to ‘control’ the non-profit organisation and the philanthropic relationship for its own giver-centric strategic ends. Non-profit organisations may, indeed, not realise the full

potential of their ‘reputation capital’ (Rumsey & White, 2009). Certainly, they do not appear to enter the corporate philanthropy arena ready for serious

170 proactive about the potential power they hold as relationship partners; they do not negotiate for greater benefits or seek to actively control relationships in ways that giving-managers clearly do. Nor do they indicate how the benefits they receive allow them to achieve social outcomes.

Obligation and reciprocation

There is some evidence in the narratives and language work of participants in this study that philanthropy is what good organisations do. Managers suggest corporations and their foundations can help further neighborhood development, give people the first step to owning their own homes, and provide a safe space and guidance for youth. Yet, this evidence is not divorced from further evidence which indicates such apparently benevolent activities are intertwined with the motives to create favorable images for givers and to control giving relationships for certain giver motivated ends. As such, corporate philanthropy is not purely altruistic. Instead, corporate philanthropy creates obligation: the limited tenure and the insecurity of future funding reinforces a requirement for reciprocation in corporate philanthropic relationships.

The emergence of the idea that giving is both strategic and strictly managed through funding processes became evident in this study on a number of levels. The first relates to the two types of temporal modes used to frame the financial aspect of the philanthropic relationship. One time-related framing was a linear mode –“we funded it for 5 years”, “that is a 3 year funding thing”, “we have

funded that initially for 2 years” – which created the impression that relationships have beginnings and endings. This makes for a precarious future for non-profit organisations and their managers who become dependent on the giver and on gifts that are received on the giver’s terms and ‘when’ the giver dictates. This was complemented by time, framed via a ‘cyclical’ mode – “we

171 predictability (the stable re-occurrence of what to give and when to give it) was important to both the corporate-giving organisation and the non-profit organisation.

In order to reduce uncertainty around resources, non-profit organisations are compelled to offer corporate-giving organisations something for their philanthropy. Indeed, the receiving-managers interviewed see reciprocation as a vital part of maintaining relationships with corporate-giving organisations. Bolstering reputation is an avenue through which receiving-managers repay corporate-giving organisations for their philanthropy. Giving-managers are well aware that their giving creates an obligation on the part of recipients to offer something in return and receiving-managers are well aware that corporate- giving organisations are primarily interested in their own objectives. In general, fairness in the relationship between corporate-giving organisations and non- profit receiving organisations is maintained by reciprocity, which requires that non-profit receiving organisations feel compelled to reciprocate to those who have helped them (Flynn, 2003).

Corporate philanthropy is dependably strategic in nature and this suggests corporate philanthropic relationships are not entirely about social outcomes. For the giving-managers in this study, the act of giving and the act of entering into relationships with non-profit organisations was less a self-expression of personal belief about doing good and more a rational, occupational negotiation of strategic decisions about why particular non-profit organisations received their philanthropy. The lack of emotion in their narratives re-asserts this. Perhaps, if attention to organisational strategy by international corporate philanthropy researchers is anything to go by (Brammer & Millington, 2006; Moir & Taffler, 2004; Saiia et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2010), it is unsurprising that organisational strategy appears so prevalent, and emotion so sparse, in the

172 decision-making processes.

A theory of managed mutual dependency

The study of the giver-receiver nexus of corporate philanthropy in New Zealand has led me to propose several findings that have been addressed above. Taken together, these findings suggest that both the giving organisation and the

recipient organisation are strategic instruments of the other’s desires in a

predominantly contributor directed partnership whereby the giving organisation engages in a philanthropic relationship to generate social credibility and the

recipient organisation seeks to maintain and enhance the giving organisation’s

social credibility for the purpose of sustaining the relationship to ensure future contributions and support. I have termed this theory, managed mutual dependency.

Overall, given the interviewed managers’ narratives, it may be argued that

managed mutual dependency is a theory that could have some broader relevance for explaining corporate philanthropy in a variety of national and local contexts over time. This theory may seem to giving-managers to be an unfair, even cynical, reflection on their hard work and charitable intentions; indeed, when confronted with this theory, as part of the theory-building process, a giving-manager challenged it. Yet, the challenge was somewhat undermined by the considerable evidence from the text of giver’ narratives. Giving-managers and receiving-managers were open about the intention of givers to engage in publicly visible philanthropic events. Upon ‘testing’ the theory with a receiving-manager, it was acknowledged to be a good reflection of corporate philanthropy.

Of particular note is that the study provides a baseline understanding for ongoing studies of corporate philanthropy within a New Zealand context. In

173 findings also, and most importantly, provide empirical evidence for a new conception which suggests that at its core, corporate philanthropy is a corporate driven vehicle for both self-expression and social outcomes.