Capitulo 1. Metodología BIM: Conceptos y Generalidades
1.6. Softwares BIM
The kind of giving can take several forms and sometimes a combination of forms.
This section sets out the findings on the kind of giving experiences and preferences
of the sample of corporations and private philanthropists. As an introduction to the
topic of the kind of giving, each of the participants was asked to consider the
concept and meanings of philanthropy. The responses included; self-interest as the
understanding of philanthropy given by five of the representatives. For the
remaining seven participants, five said that giving to benefit society was how they
understood philanthropy, and two did not have a view of what philanthropy meant.
Altruism or ‘doing good’ was how the private philanthropists understood
philanthropy.
The best way participants could describe the forms of their companies’ support,
was for them to categorise the support they provided. The categories are donations,
goods, services and grants and sponsorship and are described below in this section.
Donations were perceived as giving cash, which was problematic for many of the
representatives. One participant stated that their company had made cash donations
to arts organisations. Participants from two companies stated that whilst their
respective companies match contributions raised through staff giving programs,
there was a concern about donations of money because of previous experiences
where funds had been misapplied. One representative (C6) stated their company’s
“Rather than sponsor charity events, they have a preference for the more direct form of support such as matched giving programs, however these mostly do not focus on the arts.”
The participants from three companies said that whilst they had made cash
donations, these donations were not made to arts organisations. A further two
representatives from participant companies said it was highly unlikely they would
make cash donations and a further four companies said they would not make cash
donations. A view expressed by the representative C7 was:
“We don’t do it. We think it is a waste of shareholder funds to spend money, time etc and expect nothing back.”
In contrast to the responses from the sample of corporations, the private
philanthropists all made cash donations to arts organisations.
A stronger preference for providing goods has been identified. Two companies
from the sample responded positively about having provided goods which were
more tangible - the production of marketing collateral and the provision of space
for staging of arts related activities.
The production of marketing material has been included as a good because the
support was through the provision of the paper, the printing and the design
processes to create an end good of marketing collateral. Space has been considered
a good because the company identified a specific area of its premises, setting aside
The response from representative C9 who explained why the company could not
provide goods by stating:
“As the manufacturer of a premium product, the ability to provide goods is restricted.”
Representative C9 considered that the goods they manufactured and the exclusive
brand they owned precluded them from providing goods in all but some very select
one-off events.
For the private philanthropists who participated, they stated that they were unable
to provide goods. The structure and purpose for their giving strategy was instead
focused providing resources a recipient could later convert to goods.
A form of support that has sometimes been used is the provision of services.
Representatives from five companies advised they were not able to provide
services. The key reasons given by this group as to why they could not provide
services related to the nature and type of industry they were in, and the type of
company they were prevented them from supporting the arts in a service delivery
manner. The later point reflected the perception held by the company about its
forms of corporate support to not-for-profit organisations. The participant
representatives from the remaining seven companies advised that their companies
provided services as support, ranging from the provision of hospitality through
catering and event management, to professional services such as accounting and
Direct operational assistance through the provision of travel and freight services
was provided by two of the seven companies.
The federally funded government agencies both identified the importance of the
provision of services by corporations to the arts. Both organisations actively
encouraged companies to provide services, recognising that for some companies
this is their only means of contributing to the arts.
The private philanthropists stated they were not able to provide services as their
models of philanthropy could not sustain such activities. They could provide
resources that could be converted to the purchase of services.
Grants were a form of corporate support, as was demonstrated by participants from
four companies that award grants to suitably qualified individuals or organisations.
These grants did not create any ongoing obligation by the companies to the
recipient(s) for continued support beyond the initial terms of the grant. One
company representative advised that whilst it awarded grants, the arts sector was
not currently a recipient of its grants.
All four representatives advised that their companies’ grants had conditions
attached, and that grants were one-off award as opposed to being considered a grant
for recurrent funding. The funds could only be applied to the stated project in the
grant application. One of the companies in the four maintained an ongoing
financially rewarding for the arts company. For these companies their support to
arts organisations was not limited to just grants. Grants formed a part of their
overall support strategy.
The private philanthropists considered the option of being able to make grants to
assist individuals and organisations was an important mechanism for them to make
a difference, especially where the funding related to a project of significance. The
philanthropists advised that, like the corporations, they maintained application
processes under which each grant application was subject to review.
The overwhelming response (10 out of 12 respondents) was that the provision of
corporate support for the arts was sponsorship. Sponsorship was always with an
arts organisation and not an individual artist. It was recognised that this form of
support created a partnership or a commercial relationship between the sponsor and
the arts body. Each of the ten company representatives identified that they expected
something in return for their support. The range of views on this topic can best be
demonstrated by the responses from the participant representatives of two
companies. The first was C2 who looked for links that could be made between the
parties and stated:
“They may say what do you want and we often respond with just the logo is enough. I am against creating things. Why sponsor something if there is no link or commonality. You know why the company wants it so I am always looking for the reason why we can do business, a link. I am always looking at our sponsorships to see that they make sense.”
The second was C10, who clearly considered it important that the company brand
was not advertised just anywhere and its high corporate reputation was one the
company sought to maintain and protect, stated:
“We are not in the retail space and we don’t need to go on the backs of buses or tops of buildings so for example we have a relationship with the Art Gallery of NSW which is tied specifically around getting access to a couple of exhibitions a year, first in, just to entertain.”
The Government-funded agencies both identified the importance of the provision of
sponsorship to the arts and actively encouraged companies to provide sponsorship.
The importance of corporate sponsorship of the arts is recognised through an
awards system at an annual dinner. Participant C2 described the event as:
“You go to the AbaF dinner and it is really the one night of the year the captains of industry put on the arts hat.”
The private philanthropists considered the sponsorship model as one in which they
were unable to participate. One respondent queried whether or not the role of
government as a provider of funding for the arts had failed in that role and that
there was a view in sections of the philanthropic community, of arts organisations
as mendicants when seeking support of any kind.