1 Introduction

Given that companies confronted themselves with a more and more increased pressure due to globalization and intensified concerns regarding the equilibrium of power between corporation and society, over the years, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an issue discussed from a legal, economic, political, ethical and social viewpoint (Zaharia and Grundey 2011). The analytic interest in the field of CSR, as well as the practice of social responsibility, currently passes through a powerful rebound due to the important changes both in terms of the manner in which corporations define themselves and regarding the social expectations that revolve around for-profit organizations (Băleanu et al. 2011).

Companies make use of the concept of CSR from strategic considerations by selecting areas of interest that match the organizational values and confer opportunities in order to achieve marketing objectives. On the other hand, the organizations in question recognize that forming alliances with non-profit organizations and, implicitly, with a series of worthy causes can be mutually beneficial (Demetriou et al. 2010).

Contrary to expectations regarding the positive outcomes associated with CSR initiatives in terms of generating an optimal level of exposure and of determining some positive evaluations, such a result is difficult to be guaranteed (Bhattacharya et al. 2009). Along the time, there were produced some changes with regard to the manner in which corporate organizations support the activity of the ones from the non-profit sector. Increasingly more, in order to accomplish their objectives related to social responsibility, corporate organizations finance those non-profit organizations that are more visible concerning different communication activities (Ohreen and Petry 2012). The collaborative relationships between the for-profit organizations and the non-profit ones create a unique connection point between the objectives intended to be achieved by the two types of organizational entities, also offering a significant potential for generating innovative ways of “doing business by doing good” (Lee 2011).

Relationships between non-profit and for-profit entities involve some risks and benefits, especially for the involved non-profit organizations. Sometimes, the latter ones involve themselves in such agreements with a complete understanding of the implied consequences and potential costs. However, there appears an inherent risk somehow strengthened by these types of relationships, namely the imbalance of power that exists in the favour of corporations because they always involve themselves in partnerships with non-profit organizations as having a deliberate strategy of risk control. While the work with corporate partners can be associated with multiple advantages, non-profit organizations must be part of such relationships as having a significant preoccupation for maintaining their own level of autonomy (Baur and Schmitz 2012). The degree of achieving the objectives is also an important one. While the social objectives have the highest degree of importance for the overall activity of the non-profit organization, even the organizational objectives require a certain degree of attention. Consequently, the non-profit organizations’ managers must adapt to the potential changes that characterize the market (Lefroy and Tsarenko 2014).

The most for-profit entities confront themselves with difficulties in identifying a certain non-profit organization or of a cause to match in a significant manner to the purpose and to the nature of their field of activity. For companies it is difficult to identify CSR activities with a high degree of matching that follows the exact sense of the definition because a great part of the important and desirable activities from a social viewpoint may prove as not to have a perfect match with the defining objectives of the for-profit organizations. Accordingly, companies should give more attention to the decision about the manner in which they implement CSR initiatives, rather than to focus on partners and on the derived activities (Kim et al. 2012).

Given that, by the current research endeavour, it is aimed to increase the degree of knowledge regarding the interactions between the corporate and the non-profit organizations, the managerial issue that we intend to address resides in the following question: ‘In what manner can be improved the collaborative relationships between the corporate and the non-profit organizations in terms of the fundraising activity?’

2 Methodology

The purpose of the current research lies in analyzing the manner in which the corporate organizations interact with non-profit organizations in terms of the fundraising activity from the perspective of non-profit organizations’ representatives during the forthcoming timeframe to the financial crisis.

The information collected for this qualitative research comes from multiple sources, being procured during the period of time comprised between April and July 2014. The research was projected during March 2014. In total, 12 personal interviews were held with representatives of corporate organizations from Romania, their answers being obtained by the use of the semi-structured interview technique. The average length of an interview was of approximately 60 minutes.

Concerning the working procedure, it is important to mention that, although the mention about the organizational affiliation (corporate in this case) of the interviewed persons is rendered as a reference for the endeavour of personal interviewing, for the identification of the source of the quotations from the interviews there were allocated randomly numbers from 1 to 12. Last but not least, all the mentions as proper names, related to the represented corporate organizations’ field of activity et cetera, which could have led to the identification of the source were replaced with some generic ones.

The discussion’s analysis derived from the interviews followed a series of successive phases. Each personal interview was recorded in an audio format, played back and transcribed. Within the initial phase, the transcripts were revised independently in an exploratory manner in order to identify key constructs and topics. Afterwards, depending on the topic of reference, their content was restructured and resumed, in the end being made a selection of the common elements, on the one hand and, on the other hand, of the areas of divergence that resulted from the subsequent statements. For analyzing complex phenomena and long-term dynamics, the comparative analysis is a procedure of a sizable usefulness (Eisenhardt 1989).

One of the elements of specificity of the current research is represented by the fact that the generic title of corporate organizations refers both to corporate organizations per se and to corporate foundations, the numerical ratio being of 8:4. Hence, this diversified composition of the sample was necessary in order to capture the respondents’ differences in perceptions and interpretation.

The targeted corporate organizations represent a wide variety of industries—both from the Secondary Sector (production) and from the Tertiary one (services), the numerical ratio being of 4:8. With regard to the fields of activity, the manner of structuring the investigated sample was constituted as follows: commercializing industrial products—construction materials, PVC profiles and, respectively, automotive (three entities), commercializing tobacco products (one entity), banking (two entities), telecommunication services (two entities), consulting services and software programming engineering (one entity), life insurance (one entity), specialized medical assistance activities (one entity) and, respectively, commercializing products within the online environment (one entity).

It is also important to emphasize that all respondents were involved in activities related to the collaboration with non-profit organizations either directly (as decision makers/negotiators) or indirectly (as members of the execution/operational team). Given that the purpose of the current research resides in generating observations regarding a complex phenomenon—that is exploring the corporate organizations’ conduct in terms of the interaction with the non-profit organizations and the investigation of its definitive influences—and there is aimed the development of a theoretical framework (rather than its testing), it can be considered that the adequate sampling method is represented by the theoretical sampling.

3 Results and Discussion

3.1 Prerequisites of Establishing Collaborative Relationships

A prime issue discussed is the one referring to the manner in which for-profit organizations act when there are taken into account alternatives of establishing collaborative relationships with non-profit entities—Their approach is a reactive one or there are other circumstances in which such processes are initiated by the commercial organization itself? Consequently, the interviews’ content analysis reveals that the manifestation of a reactive position is the dominant one, the following example illustrating such an approach:

For now, we stayed at the level at which, rather, we [as a corporate organization—A/N] wait for NGOs to ‘come’ with their proposals towards us instead of us to ‘go’ towards them. (Interview no. 12)

Nevertheless, two insertions reveal the existence of a proactive approach:

[…] in the end, [non-profit—A/N] organizations ‘see’, in major lines, which ones are the investments and the directions and try to approach and to adapt themselves—to come with particular offers and yes, for me this thing to happen seems to be a natural fact, but [as a corporate organization—A/N] we do not rely on it. Namely, it is important to have an initial screening that every company I think that puts it into practice in one way or another. We make it; it needs to be done. (Interview no. 11)

[…] there is also happening for us [as a corporate organization—A/N] to ‘go’ directly towards [non-profit—A/N] organizations … It is a selling exerted by us merely because, by ignorance, by an awareness, (Name of corporate organization) might not be considered a partner and then … you might want to be considered. You want to be part of that ‘equation’. You see that you can create additional value. (Interview no. 9)

3.2 Eligibility Criteria

Once the stage represented by the primary selection of the potential non-profit collaborators was completed, there follows another important aspect, namely a process of assessing the non-profit organizations according to a series of criteria selected by the commercial organization, about which one of the interviewed persons affirms that:

Any type of partnership wanted by you [as a corporate organization—A/N] in the medium term has a phase of cognition and has a phase of ‘understanding’ and of ‘listening’. So ‘to understand’ and ‘to listen to’ what does the [non-profit—N/A] organization—which ones are the elements either human and project related that animate and motivate the people form there and which are, how to say … the relationships and the manner in which it works ‘inside’ and, afterwards, by reference to the other ones. There exists a whole set of criteria that we follow because our auditors require these criteria to be transparent and explicit ones. (Interview no. 1)

In accordance with the arguments formulated by respondents, the most important one of them refers to the degree of alignment between the object of a potential collaborative relationship and the area within which the commercial organization decides to invest:

There exists ‘openness’, with the amendment that we do not accept any project and that, usually, we accept those projects that bind to our strategic interests too [as a corporate organization—A/N]. (Interview no. 12)

It is good that the cause [represented by a certain non-profit organization—A/N] match the three social categories supported by (Name of corporate organization). (Interview no. 2)

Any NGO can come as long as it is in line with the fields where we [as a corporate foundation—A/N] finance at this moment […]. (Interview no. 7)

The motivation for which I do not accept certain projects or that is given by me [as a representative of a corporate organization—A/N] refers to the fact that they are not integrated within the CSR direction. I can’t say that there is a direction, but in my mind and in our mind it is contoured. (Interview no. 6)

Complementing, another respondent argues in detail the idea about involvement:

[…] we [as a corporate foundation—A/N] seek to involve ourselves in the things for which we give money and are done by us too … to contribute … to have a sense … To be something thought by us too! Not a ‘ready-made’ product! We do not do CSR! You do not come at me with a ‘ready-made’ product and you ask me for money […]. I want to involve myself! I want to express my involvement when that product is conceived because I want it to be something that has to do with the things about which I am interested. If it is ‘ready-made’, the chances to be aligned to what we are interested in are extremely reduced ones. (Interview no. 10)

As mentioned by one of the interviewed persons, among the most important criteria concerning the assessment of the collaboration proposals, there can be included the one about the financial aspects required by a certain project’s implementation. At the same time, it emphasizes the manner in which the represented organization addresses the potential costs associated with an involvement endeavour:

[…] the budget is not a thing to be neglected in all this effort. Our policy [as a corporate organization—A/N] is to not spend—so we don’t have these costs ‘on’ the balance sheet, ‘on’ the operational budgets, but we use in full that facility allowed by the Fiscal Code [the mention integrated within Law no. 571/2003 regarding the Fiscal Code—A/N] according to which minimum of 3‰ of the turnover and 20% of the profit tax can be spent on sponsorship activities. (Interview no. 11)

The following two insertions still refer to financial aspects but, within this framework, there is highlighted the existence of a certain degree of flexibility regarding the manner in which the budgets are allocated, especially when certain requests are answered about which the for-profit entity is particularly interested in or when the projects are not too large scale ones:

The conditions are flexible enough […]. The things can be adapted long enough and, sometimes, throughout the project too; if we have money left, we reassign them. (Interview no. 4)

It depends a lot on the amounts about which we talk. If there is subjected a small project, that does not have a major impact or it is not on the long run, then, for sure, there can be made an exception to the already approved budget. This is usually done—an adjustment. (Interview no. 2)

The normalization of the extent in which the non-profit organization depends on the financing obtained from the commercial organization is another issue referred to by two of the respondents:

[…] [as a corporate foundation—A/N] we don’t want our partners to rely exclusively on our financing because it isn’t healthy. We try to help them relative to the part of organizational development. Namely, besides the project’s financing per se, we also look at their organizational development needs. (Interview no. 7)

They [as collaborator non-profit organizations—A/N] also have to come with a part of contribution because we don’t want them to rely totally on the received money. (Interview no. 4)

Further, the financial aspects still make the object of the discussion, but two of the respondents connect this subject to the idea of experience:

Financial results … Certainly, any company investigates slightly the financial reports of the [non-profit—A/N] organizations with which it works. (Interview no. 11)

[The collaborator non-profit organization—A/N] must have an extremely good experience so that to guarantee that the project in question, even though has considerable goals, will be able to succeed. Because it is about a major investment. (Interview no. 8)

To see that [the collaborator non-profit organization—A/N] has experience. Not to see that, all at once, it receives 50,000 euro and we find out that it does not know to manage them. To see that it has done ‘something’ … Experience regarding projects; these one counts quite a lot. (Interview no. 4)

In their turn, non-profit organizations’ type of projects implemented or in progress represents another criterion the importance of which is evoked by two of the respondents. The first one reiterates the idea regarding the obtained results, as well as the one about the alignment with the represented organization’s fields of interest:

At the most professional possible way, there needs to exist a portfolio criteria of the respective [non-profit—A/N] organizations; portfolio that should reflect the type of projects that the Company wants to develop together with this institution. A series of visible, sustainable results on the market ‘on’ the projects developed by the Company. (Interview no. 11)

Another two subjects, namely the type of projects previously held and the impact associated with them, are again brought into discussion, at the same time being made the connection with another criterion—the sustainability—as points out another respondent:

[…] the organization’s sustainability criteria—‘What kind of projects did it carried before?’, ‘What was their impact?’. (Interview no. 1)

Two other respondents refer to the same subject, emphasizing its definitive importance:

The first thing at which we look [as a corporate organization—A/N] is the continuity in the project’s logic. (Interview no. 12)

[As a corporate organization representative—A/N] I am looking at sustainability. My personal philosophy is that, instead of being ‘the big thing from a small point’, it is better to be ‘a significant part of something big’, something ‘impactful’. And, usually, it is a healthy philosophy. (Interview no. 9)

Another recurring subject derived from the one about the strategic alignment between the commercial organization’s profile and the one of the potential non-profit collaborator is represented by approaching the projects from a long-term perspective, along with generating a standing impact (mention rendered, furthermore, within the previous insertion):

We [as a corporate foundation—A/N] give them [to non-profit organizations—A/N] this grant, but we want to ensure ourselves that the project will be continued form a long term perspective. (Interview no. 4)

[As a corporate organization—A/N] we want some relations on medium and long term with those [non-profit—A/N] organizations that manage themselves to see beyond the fiscal year that needs to be executed. […] we want to work on a medium and long term. (Interview no. 1)

[…] a very large number of beneficiaries, significant impact in the economic/social environment. (Interview no. 8)

The approaches regarding the dimensions of the non-profit organizations with which a commercial organization could have a collaboration relationship represent other selection criteria, as it is interesting to observe that the opinions expressed in such a framework vary a lot:

Relative to the eligibility criteria there isn’t a convention that refers to the size of the NGO or to the size in terms of budget/number of people. I [as a corporate foundation representative—A/N] am interested in the project per se. I am not interested if it’s a large/small organization … it doesn’t seem relevant. (Interview no. 7)

As can be observed, the exemplified insertion expresses the fact that, in the discussed case, the emphasis is put on the project itself. The following insertion as well is built around the type of the project but, in this framework, the organization’s dimension becomes a notable aspect:

In general, the greater a [non-profit—A/N] organization, the less chances to collaborate, somewhat. […] the chances to be exactly ‘on’ what we intend to do are quite reduced. (Interview no. 10)

With regard to the definitive characteristics of the collaborator non-profit organization’s conduct, the interviews’ content analysis reveals the fact that the most frequently mentioned is the one about reliability. Thus, two of the respondents affirm:

It is about reliability, rigor and responsibility in budgets’ spending. To exist a consciousness on every investment, on the amount of money spent. (Interview no. 11)

[…] It would be desirable for that NGO to prove the reliability it has. So it’s desirable for that NGO to be one that, indeed, has … not necessarily awareness, but a proven reliability. It would be seen if it’s an NGO that has a good reputation. (Interview no. 2)

Within the content of the second insertion previously rendered, there is mentioned the fact that awareness is also an aspect taken into account by the commercial organizations, but another interviewed person asserts something contrary:

It doesn’t matter the reputation of an organization … We ‘refused’ … Now it sounds so, ‘condescending’… (Interview no. 10)

Moreover, one of the respondents mentions the careful approach of the organization in terms of an association decision:

There is necessary, surely, to be careful relative to how we associate ourselves. (Name of brand from the corporate organization’s portfolio) is a premium brand. So ‘here’ care must be considered. (Interview no. 3)

3.3 Conduct in Terms of Collaboration Relationships Involvement

The manner of putting into practice the interaction between the entities which represent the for-profit sector, respectively, the non-profit one is also an aspect of major importance. In order to support this idea, one of the respondents expresses an opinion about the conduct of a non-profit organization from a collaborative relationship:

[The non-profit organization—A/N] keeps its promises. I believe that this one is the most important think and the most important advice. Until it comes to promises, to ensure itself that it can deliver what it considered initially. (Interview no. 5)

According to another respondent’s opinion, the information flow between the two types of organizations has, in its turn, a definitive role both for the non-profit collaborator from the perspective of the effectiveness associated with the project’s implementation and for the for-profit one from the viewpoint of the practices of results’ tracking:

[…] the transparency in the relationship with the NGO. As possible, [as a corporate organization—A/N] to receive as much information as possible about the respective project—how it is carried on, how it is quantified, which ones are its objectives, which ones are the indicators by which there is measured the achievement of those objectives, with what kind of results that project ends because we, in our turn, communicate further these results to our colleagues from the head office that make reporting to diverse entities and such information is very important for us. And another think that we look at is, of course, the impact. The impact meaning not necessarily how many hundreds of thousands of people heard the messages transmitted by the support given to the respective project but, concretely, how many people benefited or had won as that particular project was unfolded. We are not interested necessarily in reputation as we are interested in the effect—the concrete, practical result. (Interview no. 12)

Other angles of the discussion about the manner in which the information exchange is made but, on this occasion, strictly limited to the reporting activity are the following ones:

All our partners [as a corporate foundation—A/N] know that, when they apply and hence they obtain that funding, they will have to report on a monthly basis—both narrative and financial. All the projects are carefully monitored in order to be sure that money is used ‘properly’. In this way, the things are transparent, the [non-profit—A/N] organizations must report—they are audited, they are verified. It is more difficult, there is more work for us, but it is even more rewarding. (Interview no. 7)

[As a corporate organization—A/N] we think in a complex manner—namely, we have to support the business. Everything you do must have either relevance as a direction—in order to refer ourselves to the business per se, and as a support factor for the business. Sure that everything is reflected in KPIs and in results; you depend on the latter ones. […] we are in an ‘area’ where we work with assessments and this one is a problem. (Interview no. 11)

The discussion concerning the guidelines that should be followed by the commercial entities within the context of collaboration with the non-profit ones refers, on the one hand, to the situation when the commercial entities approach this issue in an independent manner:

[As a corporate foundation—A/N] once at three years we develop a study with a—obviously—firm specialized in market research studies. (Interview no. 7)

On the other hand, there also appear circumstances under which the involvement areas (from the viewpoint of corporate social responsibility) are addressed in different degrees as a consequence of the recommendations formulated by the group of firms within which the organization is a part:

[…] ideas and projects that can come from the Group. (Interview no. 6)

[As a corporate organization—A/N] we relate to what it is recommended by the Group. (Interview no. 11)

Simultaneously, another interviewed person describes the notion of collaborative relationship as representing a comprehensive element relative to the financial value that corresponds to the supporting behaviour adopted by the commercial organization:

For me [as a corporate foundation representative—A/N], a strategic partnership doesn’t mean 10,000 euro per year. Well, it can mean even 10,000. It can mean 40,000 euro per year. It means the linkage created together with (Name of corporate organization), which are ‘there’ for us and us for them, likewise … And we are ‘friends’ in the sense that we keep in touch, we keep ourselves informed about what each of us does, about what future plans we have and what we can do together. (Interview no. 5)

Further, another respondent evokes one of the most notable aspects that define the collaboration between the for-profit and non-profit organizations:

[…] the Company’s relationship with NGOs it is not made for this purpose per se—establishing a partnership. The Company’s relationship is one with a wide variety of stakeholders—of interest factors or organizations/persons that, in a way or another, determine its activity or the smooth running of it. (Interview no. 1)

3.4 Communication Actions

The communication actions associated with a collaborative relationship between for-profit and non-profit organizations, from the respondents’ perspective, divide themselves into two distinctive categories depending on the environment that corresponds to the transmitted message—the internal and the external communication. Even though, at first glance, the external communication seems to hold the main role in a context concerning CSR initiatives, two of the formulated arguments reflect contrary opinions regarding this assumption:

[…] we [as a corporate organization—A/N] don’t have a media budget allocated for the communication ‘on’ social responsibility initiatives. The unique manner of communication that is taken into account by us with priority consists of the internal communication towards all of our employees by the use of all the means that we have. (Interview no. 12)

[As a corporate organization—A/N] we gave more attention to communicating inside the organization and, in general, the internal communication was much more developed because (Name of corporate organization), a good long time, was oriented towards the internal communication. (Interview no. 1)

The following two expressed viewpoints refer to the importance of allocating resources in order to support a non-profit organization or for implementing a collaborative relationship per se in comparison with the circumstance under which their destination would be assigned to promoting social involvement. Within the first example, there is made a reference to a potential good practice organizational conduct:

[…] [As a corporate foundation—A/N] we don’t spend three quarters of the budget on PR and a quarter on the project. Our money…—the majority—are directed towards projects. Important is to make the project and to have an object for discussion, and not vice versa. (Interview no. 7)

In the other example, there can be observed the fact that the approach of the subject is made through successive negations illustrated by a series of mentions about actions from the area of communicating by the use of advertising:

In general, [as a corporate organization—A/N] we said that ‘if we do something, it will be seen’. We haven’t made an effort in order to communicate ‘outside’ visibly and aggressively because our achievements although, always, the communication part from the partnerships completed by us was an important part. We ‘walk’ the principle ‘we tell what we do and we do what we tell’, but we considered that ‘putting’ even financial resources into the communication part, does not make sense. The reason why we haven’t made publicity, we haven’t made advertising and we never paid for publicity and advertising spaces in order to ‘erode’ by this manner the resources that could be allocated to certain organizations or to a certain cause. (Interview no. 1)

Still about the role of communication, but this time from a diametrically opposed angle, states one of the interviewed persons:

Usually, this is a clause of ours [as a corporate organization—A/N]—to be mentioned there appears something that ‘talks’ about the project financed by us. To be mentioned and, automatically, we have a certain type of advertising. Well, surely … we speak about the major projects. Within the case of the small projects where you ‘give’ less, you don’t have … you can’t have this ‘pretence’. But, by reference to the major projects, it is normal to mention you. Where there is made advertising for the project, ‘there’ are we present. (Interview no. 8)

In seven of the 12 interviews conducted with representatives of commercial organizations, there were multiple mentions about aspects such as visibility, reputation or brand awareness, the statements being made predominantly in an indirect manner. Two of the most relevant mentions are the following ones:

Of course that for a company is important to have also visibility for what it intends to do in terms of social involvement. […] the brand’s visibility and its attached values related to defining that company as a socially involved one. This is what we aim at. […] because there are involved some funds, obviously that there should be identified a justification from a non-commercial viewpoint too, but it—this non-commercial—has an equivalence in the visibility as a brand. (Interview no. 11)

Obviously that the main reason, from my point of view, is awareness. This is also a trend … We all [as corporate organizations—A/N] want to associate ourselves with some good causes, to increase awareness. (Interview no. 6)

4 Discussion and Further Research

The focal aspect that derives from the prerequisites of establishing collaborative relationships between entities from the for-profit and, respectively, the non-profit sectors refers to the manner in which corporate organizations address the identification of the potential collaborators. The interview’s content analysis indicates the fact that the dominant approach is the reactive one in the sense that the endeavour’s initiation for establishing collaboration relationships is made by the non-profit organizations. Nevertheless, there are situations within which the role of initiator belongs to the corporate ones. In particular, it is interesting to observe that, in one of the interviews, the notion of selling process is associated with CSR initiatives and, implicitly, with the involvement intent in collaborative relationships with non-profit entities.

Regarding the eligibility criteria that substantiate the selection of collaborator non-profit organizations, the actions of formulating and communicating them in an objective manner can be considered essential ones. In consonance with this thing, one of the respondents brings into discussion the justification of such a conduct in the sense that there is mentioned the auditing process and, implicitly, its binding nature. From the viewpoint of the issues that represent the object of the criteria depending on which corporate organizations decide to collaborate with non-profit organizations, it may be concluded that the existence of a strategic alignment is the most important one of these. Thereby, for corporate organizations it is extremely important, between what represents the object of a potential collaborative relationship and the directions followed by it in terms of its CSR conduct, to have an alignment. Moreover, as the analysis of the interview’s content indicates, it is necessary that this matching to be a strategic one by its nature so that it contributes to the achievement of the objectives associated with the manner in which organizations carry out their commercial activity.

The financial aspects associated with corporate organizations’ involvement into collaborative relationships with non-profit organizations represent another particularity depending on which such an interaction takes place or not. Firstly, corporate organizations’ option for collaboration depends on the financial results obtained in the sense that their support is filtered by the fiscal facilities conferred by law. Secondly, the flexibility degree of the budget allocated to sponsorship activities influences, in its turn, in a direct manner the decision regarding the association of the two types of entities. Again, the financial component is brought into discussion so that other two respondents recall the necessity of normalizing the extent to which non-profit organizations depend on the corporate financing because depending entirely on them may constitute a significant drawback of their own sustainability.

The interviews’ content analysis reveals the fact that another criterion considered by corporate organizations as to be a definitive one relative to establishing a collaborative relationship is represented by approaching projects from a medium- or long-term perspective and, consequently, generating a significant impact. Within the same context and, at the same time, in connection with the financial area, the respondents’ statements also evoke that the non-profit organizations’ history regarding their experience in terms of managing projects and, implicitly, their budgets is one of the monitored criteria.

The discussion about the dimensions of the non-profit organizations that have the status of a potential collaborator can be looked at as depending on two distinct plans. The first plan is the one at which, from the perspective of corporate organizations, the aspect regarding the proposed project’s characteristics is the one that prevails in comparison with the one about dimensions. By reference to the second plan, besides the elements that individualize the proposed project, the emphasis is put on the type of organizations of whose portfolio it is part of. Thus, one of the respondents expresses its preference regarding the work with international organizations due to the fact that their degree of formalization is an aspect that facilitates the manner in which the information exchange is addressed.

Reliability is an attribute that is an integral part of the main elements that characterize the conduct of non-profit organizations with which corporate entities may establish a collaboration relationship, according to the viewpoints expressed by the respondents. This attribute, on the one hand, refers to the manner in which non-profit organizations approach or relate themselves to the financial contribution offered by the financing corporate organizations. On the other hand, as stated by another respondent, the reliability derives from acquiring a good reputation by the non-profit organization.

As one of the interviewed persons says, fulfilling the assumed commitments is one of the principles of good practice that determine the proper collaboration between the corporate organizations and the non-profit ones. One of the recurring subjects in terms of the manner of implementing the information exchange between entities refers to the reporting process. The consistency of the feedback received by the corporate organizations is an aspect that influences the interaction from both a current and a future perspective relative to the probability of continuing the collaborative relationship.

Another characteristic of the corporate organization’s conduct regarding the involvement into collaborative relationships with non-profit organizations refers to the manner of approaching the fields associated with the manifestation of a socially responsible behaviour. Thereby, these can be taken into account either on the basis of the own organizational considerations or as a further step related to the international recommendations. Beyond these aspects, the corporate organization’s conduct is a variable and diverse one by the manner of implementing the social involvement endeavours.

Amongst the elements of characterizing the communication associated with the interaction between corporate organizations and the non-profit ones, there can be found the one that refers to the environment to which there are addressed the concerned actions—the internal environment or the external one. The respondents’ assertions indicate that orienting the communication actions towards the internal environment represents a consistent part of the totality of such endeavours, as one of the interviewed persons highlights the priority character of such an initiative. In the case of the communication directed towards the external environment, there can be observed the existence of a consensus of the respondents in terms of the necessity of allocating resources for supporting the non-profit organizations’ activity in comparison with the case in which resources are watched as the object of certain actions that promote elements regarding corporate organizations’ identity. Notwithstanding, there are some opinions by which, practically, is confirmed the fact that the communication actions that derive from the implementation of a collaborative relationship between corporate organizations and the non-profit ones have a high degree of importance. Consequently, in more than half of the interviews, within the discussion about the communication actions derived from a collaborative relationship, the respondents’ mentions referred—even though in an indirect manner—to a series of terms of which meaning was related to promoting the identity of the represented organizations.