Abstract
Over the last few years, the advent of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has enhanced corporate social commitment and cooperation between corporations and nonprofit organisations (NPO). The development of partnerships with the nonprofit sector is an important strategic tool that enables corporations both to promote socially active attitudes and to contribute to social well-being, as well as to pursue business aims.
Through the analysis of Italian and international literature, the first part of this chapter highlights three different tendencies of thought with regard to the relationship between CSR and corporate social commitment: pure profit approach, multi-stakeholder approach and social orientation approach.
Secondly the chapter discusses the nonprofit-business alliances (NBAs) and classifies variables for understanding alliances’ characteristics through the analysis of Italian and international case histories.
Moreover it illustrates the evolution of different types of partnerships and defines the features of the so-called integrated NBAs. The chapter ends with two best practices: Foxy for UNICEF and Ikea for UNICEF. The case histories are examples of integrated alliance. This kind of partnership represents a successful strategy enabling the corporation to combine business goals with tangible support to social cause.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This article is a revision of a paper presented at The Sixth International Conference on Catholic Social Thought and Management Education The Good Company: “Catholic Social Thought and Corporate Social Responsibility in Dialogue”, Pontifical University of St. Thomas (Angelicum) Rome, Italy—October 5–7, 2006.
- 2.
One of the early empirical studies of this subject was conducted in 1966 by Johnson [14], aiming at inquiring into the relationship between corporate philanthropy and business size.
- 3.
Mentioned in [15, p. 603].
- 4.
- 5.
“A stakeholder is any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of a corporation’s purpose. Stakeholders include employees, customers, suppliers, stockholders, banks, environmentalists, government and other groups who can help or hurt the corporation” [18, p. 55].
- 6.
For a further analysis see [19].
- 7.
Carroll: “Philanthropy is icing on the cake—or on the pyramid, using our metaphor” [6, p. 42].
- 8.
The analysis regards Italian and international partnerships carried out between 2002 and 2006 and collected in the following websites: http://www.rsinews.it, http://www.sodalitas.it, http://www.clubsocialis.it, http://www.orsadata.it (for Italian partnerships) and UNDP and the Private Sector, UNDP (2004), http://www.wbcsd.ch and http://www.unglobalcompact.org (for international partnerships).
- 9.
Rondinelli and London [20] suggested a taxonomy based on the intensity of the relationship, whereas Elkington and Fennel [21] identified a range of possible relationships between corporations and nonprofit organisations based on activities and on the level of corporate involvement. Austin’s [22] classification focuses on how intense the cooperation is, measured against the cross-sector cooperation continuum, and includes three types of relationships: philanthropic stage, transactional stage and integrative stage.
- 10.
For further analysis on cause-related marketing, see [11].
- 11.
Source: http://www.greenpeace.it
- 12.
The role of MSC is to identify through a certification programme well-run fisheries and to promote the consumption of MSC marked products.
- 13.
In this connection Wymer and Samu [23] sustain that commitment (in terms of business resources and managerial involvement) is lower or higher in each type of partnership depending on the purpose of the agreement, and they classify partnerships as follows: corporate philanthropy, corporate foundation, licensing agreements, sponsorships, transaction-based promotions, joint issue promotion and joint ventures.
- 14.
The information regarding the cases studied was collected during an interview to Annita Di Donato (responsible for corporate partnerships of UNICEF-Italy who personally conducted the aforesaid partnerships) as well as in the following websites: http://www.foxy.it, http://www.ikea.com and http://www.unicef.it.
- 15.
Pigotta is a handmade fabric doll manufactured by UNICEF volunteers which was sold for 20 euros—a price equivalent to the cost of immunising and administering vitamin A to one child.
References
Iasevoli G (2004) Le alleanze di marketing. Franco Angeli, Milan
Kotler P, Lee N (2005) Corporate social responsibility. Wiley, New Jersey
Carr AZ (1996) Is business bluffing ethical? In: Rae SB, Wong KL (eds) Beyond integrity: a Judeo-Christian approach. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, pp 55–62
European Commission (2001) Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. http://ec.europa.eu
Sacconi L (2004) Corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a model of “extended” corporate governance. An explanation based on the economic theories of social contract, reputation and reciprocal conformism. In: Liuc Papers n. 142, Serie Etica, Diritto ed Economia 10
Carroll AB (1991) The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus Horiz July–August:39–47
Sciarelli S (1996) Etica aziendale e finalità imprenditoriali. Econ Manag 6:13–27
Sciarelli S (2002) La produzione del valore allargato quale obiettivo dell’etica d’impresa. Finanza Marketing e Produzione dicembre:5–17
Sciarelli S (2005) L’ampliamento della responsabilità sociale dell’impresa. Sinergie 67:35–43
Molteni M (2004) Responsabilità Sociale e Performance d’Impresa. V&P Università , Milano
Michelini L (2007) Strategie collaborative per lo sviluppo della corporate social responsibility. Franco Angeli, Milan
Weld R (1998) The art of giving. Industry Week 247:17
Varadarajan PR, Menon A (1988) Cause-related marketing: a coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. J Market 52:58–74
Johnson O (1966) Corporate philanthropy: an analysis of corporate contributions. J Bus 39:489–504
Lantos GP (2001) The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. J Consum Market 18(7):595–630
Heath J, Norman W (2004) Stakeholder theory, corporate governance and public management: what the history of state-run enterprises teach us in the post-Enron Era? J Bus Ethics 52:247–265
Sternberg E (1994) Just business: business ethics in action. Little Brown, London
Freeman ER (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston
Sacconi L (a cura di) (2005) Guida Critica alla Responsabilità Sociale e al governo d’Impresa. Bancaria Editrice
Rondinelli DA, London T (2003) How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. Acad Manag Exec 17(1):2003
Elkington J, Fennell S (1998) Partners for sustainability. Greener Manag Int 24:48–60
Austin JE (2002) The collaboration challenge. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Wymer WW, Samu S (2003) Dimensions of business and nonprofit collaborative relationship. In: Wymer WW, Samu S (eds) Nonprofit and business sector collaboration. Best Business Book, Binghamton
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Michelini, L. (2014). Nonprofit and Business Sector Collaboration: Towards a New Strategic Approach. In: Okonkwo, B. (eds) Christian Ethics and Corporate Culture. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00939-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00939-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-00938-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-00939-1
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)