Las técnicas de traducción de Don Quijote de la Mancha

Despite criticism of giver-centric corporate philanthropy research, understanding why corporate managers give is fundamental to understanding corporate philanthropy. While corporate philanthropy is an organised action, it

30 is prompted by the individual decision-making of managers (Basil & Weber, 2006; Buchholtz et al., 1999; Zhang et al., 2010) and is a means for managers to please various stakeholders (Adams-Chau, 1988). It is commonly conceived that managers are motivated by either a concern for the welfare of others (Jones, 1994) or to increase shareholder wealth (Galaskiewicz, 1989). Furthermore, there are various positions of compromise.

Figure 2 describes what Burlingame and Frishkoff (1996) believe to be the fundamental philosophical positions for corporate philanthropy. A number of business models and theories have been developed to explain the motivations/motives for giving and to remind managers of their responsibilities

and duties to people and groups that have ‘legitimate’ claims on businesses and

their philanthropy. Saiia (1999) tries to distinguish more clearly than Figure 2: Burlingame and Frishkoff's (1996, p.97) philosophical framework of charitable business contributions

31 Burlingame and Frishkoff (1996) the philosophical motivations/motives for giving without losing sight of the obvious nature of continua – that positions blend from one position to another (see Figure 3). Saiia (1999) used his model to ask managers questions about these positions and found empirical support for

the hypothesis that “corporate giving managers believe that the practice of

philanthropy is becoming more strategic” (p.88).

Moir and Taffler’s (2004) integrative framework of corporate philanthropy is another useful tool devised by the authors to better comprehend and explain the motivational possibilities for corporate philanthropy. Their model captures the notions that corporations and their managers are motivated by the desire to

32 serve business interests (strategic orientation), to serve societal interests (altruism) or, to varying extents, serve both (enlightened self-interest). But Moir

and Taffler’s (2004) model goes further to add a stakeholder dimension (see Figure 4).

Moir and Taffler’s (2004) model departs from Burlingame and Frishkoff’s

(1996) and Saiia’s (1999) in that the authors argue a neo-classical response is characterised not only by a focus on business benefits but also the actions of particular stakeholders. The model further argues that while altruism focuses on society, there is no discernible attention to particular stakeholders. Moir and Taffler (2004) go on to suggest that there are two main motivations/motives among givers: ‘advertisers’ who use their giving “as a form of direct

marketing” (p.159) and ‘legitimators’ who seek, in contrast, to use giving “in an attempt to influence a broader group of stakeholders” (p.159). All firms, say Moir and Taffler (2004), engage to some extent in stakeholder management. Figure 4: Moir and Taffler's (2004, p.158) developed framework of corporate philanthropy

33 In essence, empirical studies of motivations/motives have been more about trying to capture what drives the giver to give. That research has proved rewarding but it, in part, is predicated on the assumption that corporations,

through their philanthropic efforts, act ‘upon’ society. This is distinct from the notion that corporations are embedded within society and are engaged in interactions with members of society and stakeholders, a view that Saiia (2001) makes apparent. The view that corporations do not simply give but rather engage in giving-receiving relationships warrants further consideration. Equally important is why non-profit managers choose to engage in relationships with corporate-giving organisations and their managers and how non-profit managers perceive the motivations/motives of corporate-giving managers.

Another consideration is the nature of the knowledge that researchers are getting when they study motivations/motives. The study of motivations/motives is simply problematic since managers are likely to respond to requests for them to divulge their motivations/motives to give, depending on their audiences, who are often researchers but also any perceived readers of their research publications (Chesters & Lawrence, 2008; Moir & Taffler, 2004; Zhang et al., 2010). It is reasonable to expect that managers will have the impulse to report their actions in the best light in the public eye. Of course, this presents us with an opportunity to explore how managers, both giving and receiving, wish their motivations/motives to be perceived. It seems that qualitative instruments may appropriately assist us with the complexity that surrounds the study of motivations/motives (Shaw et al., 2010).

Traditionally, giver motivation/motive research has been the product of certain kinds of limited survey-based data. The prevailing empirical methodology of

‘population survey’ has, for some time, drawn the attention of researchers

looking to establish motivations/motives for philanthropic giving (Brammer, Millington, & Pavelin, 2006). Survey instruments such as force-choice

34 questionnaires (e.g. Saiia et al., 2003) and postal/mail surveys (e.g. Basil & Weber, 2006) have led to some strong claims, regarding what impels or encourages managers to make philanthropic acts, even though the shortcomings of such research methods are frequently underplayed; surveys constrain

participants’ voices and native vocabularies by forcing managers to respond to

pre-established questions constructed by the researcher (Crane, 1999).

Indeed, the lack of attention to a wide variety of methodological research instruments has prompted the call for novel exploratory research methods (Dentchev, 2004) and disciplinary diversity in the study of the motivations/motives for corporate philanthropy (Buchholtz & Brown, 2006). That call needs answering. A closer look at the research reporting the motivations/motives of international managers for corporate philanthropy is needed to provide further context; the following section looks specifically at the research regarding the motivation/motive to enhance shareholder wealth, particularly through strategic initiatives.