RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORPORATE DONORS AND THEIR NGO RECIPIENTS

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

INTRODUCTION

As the awareness and power of stakeholders, including NGO recipients of corporate funding, increases, so too does the pressure on corporates to show their responsibility socially as well as environmentally. Cantrel, Kyriazis and Noble (2013) posit that the growing pressure from both internal and external stakeholders to be more socially responsible, has resulted in many corporates’ giving programmes being incorporated into; reported on; and included in modern research on organisational Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), as corporations do their utmost to be seen as socially responsible.
Abugre and Nyuur (2015) see the growing integration of CSR into a strategic agenda as stirred by the increasing demand of society to control power, but also to control the environmentally shattering activities of corporates. Over and above this, they argue that the threat of negative publicity has admonished organisations to take up and to promote CSR, emphasising that corporations could be good by contributing to social and economic development, as well as protecting the environment, without the coercive push of governments, institutions and society (Jenkins, 2005). On the other hand, Szőcs, Schlegelmilch, Rusch and Shamma (2016) argue that the CSR activities of corporates can also be a vital part of safeguarding their reputation.
They define corporate reputation as the shared opinion of an organisation held by its stakeholders. For the purpose of this study, these stakeholders include NGO recipients of CSR/CSI funding. Porter and Kramer (2011:4) go beyond CSR – they argue that businesses need to reconnect company success with social progress. They see the solution as laying in the principle of shared value, which involves companies creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by taking care of the needs and challenges of the society. They do not see shared value as social responsibility, philanthropy, or even sustainability, but as an innovative way of accomplishing success economically for both the company and society. For them, companies must lead in re-uniting business and society. Business mostly works with society through NGOs.
They mostly channel their CSR activities to communities in society through NGOs that raise funds from various sources, including corporates. Through CSR funding, corporates enter into partnership with NGOs to implement projects that benefit communities on the corporates’ behalf. However, Mitchell (2014:69) argues that the way NGOs rely on the external environment for financial support exposes them to resource dependence and possibly to external control. The two-way symmetrical communication model endeavours to reach this balance by improving the relationship between organisations and stakeholders and by focusing on, amongst others, conflict resolution to negotiate mutually beneficial outcomes. Two-way communication gives-and-takes information through dialogue (Grunig, 1992). Corporates’ use of the two-way communication between themselves and their stakeholders including NGO recipients opens up dialogue and feedback so that they can negotiate mutually beneficial outcomes. This is in line with Morsing and Schultz’s (2006:328) stakeholder involvement strategy towards CSR communication, which assumes a dialogue with its stakeholders. For this strategy, communication is centred on making sure that a two-way dialogue takes place. The strategy mainly aims to foster mutual understanding, rational agreement or consent (Morsing & Schultz, 2006:328).
In light of the above, the stakeholder relationship is an important relationship, which needs to be managed well. Grunig (1992) sees stakeholders as people who are affected by the decisions of an organisation – or those whose decisions may possibly affect the organisation. Stakeholders furthermore include NGO recipients of corporate funding who are linked to an organisation; and they and the organisation have consequences upon each other. Their decision-making influences each other. According to Freeman (1984:40), corporates have stakeholders that are groups as well as individuals who benefit from or are impacted negatively by corporate actions. For the purpose of this study, NGO recipients of corporate funds are part of this group. From this perspective, the relationship between a corporate and the NGOs that it funds is also vital, and trust is an important component of that relationship.
Trust is paramount for successful decision-making in collaborative networks. It is characterised by transparency, fairness, and openness. NGO recipients should be free to participate in dialogue without fear of disrespect for their ideas (Henderson & Smith-King, 2015:1552). Henderson and Smith-King (2015) postulate that when there is distrust among partners, working together towards actualising common goals is hindered as it will take some time to restore that trust. In light of the above, Henderson and Smith-King (2015) identify three over-arching features of trust that can be traced: vulnerability, expectations and risk. Collaborating partners are vulnerable and susceptible to damage but trust assures them that opportunistic conduct and autonomous actions are unacceptable for the relationship to work. Reducing the risk of vulnerability is part of the decision-making process that corporates go through in deciding which NGOs to fund. Muller, Pfarrer and Little (2014:1) argue that not much is known about how corporate philanthropy decisions are made, as the reality of corporate philanthropy decisions seems to be complex. They postulate that the criteria for corporate decisions are ambiguous and their effect on an organisation’s bottom line is indeterminate as emotions, amongst others, have a key role in decision-making. They posit that these emotions, like empathy, triggered by human needs external to the organisation, affect the likelihood, scale, and form of organisational philanthropic responses directed at alleviating that need.

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

• Declaration
• Acknowledgements
• Abstract
• Table of contents
• List of figures
• List of Tables
• ACRONYMS
• Chapter One
  • 1.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 1.2 BACKGROUND
    • 1.2.1 Value creation principle
    • 1.2.2 Sustainable business
    • 1.2.3 Social sustainability
    • 1.2.4 Corporate citizenship
    • 1.2.5 Corporate social responsibility
    • 1.2.6 Corporate social performance
    • 1.2.7 Corporate social investment
    • 1.2.8 Shared value
    • 1.2.9 CSR Communication
  • 1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
    • 1.3.1 Purpose statement
    • 1.3.2 Primary research question
    • 1.3.3 Secondary research questions
  • 1.4 CONCEPTUALISATION
  • 1.5 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
  • 1.6 IMPORTANCE AND BENEFITS OF THE STUDY
  • 1.7 DELIMITATIONS
  • 1.8 ASSUMPTIONS
  • 1.9 DEMARCATION OF THE CHAPTERS
  • 1.10 SUMMARY
• CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
  • 2.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
    • 2.2.1 Meta-theoretical approach
    • 2.2.2 Primary domain and disciplines
    • 2.2.3 Academic fields
    • 2.2.4 Theories
    • Strategic Constituencies Theory
    • Game Theory
    • 2.2.5 Models
  • 2.3 SUMMARY
• Chapter three: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORPORATE DONORS AND THEIR NGO RECIPIENTS
  • 3.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 3.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORPORATES AND NGOs
    • 3.2.1 Stakeholder management
    • 3.2.2 Stakeholder management and sustainability
    • 3.2.3 Reasons for NGO engagement
  • 3.2.4 Organisational relationships
  • 3.3 ATTRIBUTES OF NGO AND CORPORATE RELATIONSHIPS
    • 3.3.1 Dialogue
    • 3.3.2 NGO contributions
    • 3.3.3 Power imbalances
    • 3.3.4 Five Forces Framework
  • 3.4 CORPORATE IMAGE AND REPUTATION
  • 3.5 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
    • 3.5.1 Emergence of corporate governance in South Africa
    • 3.5.2 Responsible corporate governance
    • 3.5.3 King 111 Principles of Corporate Governance
    • 3.5.4 Legal considerations/policy
    • 3.5.5 Stakeholder governance
  • 3.6 INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATED REPORTING
    • 3.6.1 Benefits of Integrated Reporting
    • 3.6.2 Challenges of Integrated Reporting
  • 3.7 SUMMARY
• CHAPTER FOUR: STRATEGIC AND COMMUNICATIVE DECISION-MAKING
  • 4.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 4.2 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
  • 4.3 DECISION-MAKING
    • 4.3.1 Reflective decision-making
    • 4.3.2 Participatory decision-making
    • 4.3.3 Factors affecting decision-making processes
    • 4.3.4 Decision specific characteristics
    • 4.3.5 Internal organisational characteristics
  • 4.4 STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING
    • 4.4.1 Mintzberg’s decision-making model
    • 4.4.2 Strategic decision-making process
    • 4.4.3 Strategic issues
  • 4.5 STAKEHOLDER APPROACH TO STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
    • 4.5.1 Stakeholders’ influence on decision-making
  • 4.6 THE ROLE OF INFORMATION IN STRATEGIC DECISION-MAKING
    • 4.6.1 Strategic role of information
  • 4.7 CORPORATE COMMUNICATION
    • 4.7.1 Communication in the organisation
    • 4.7.2 Communicative leadership
  • 4.8 ROLES OF A COMMUNICATIVE LEADER
  • 4.9 STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION
  • 4.10 COMMUNICATIVE DECISION-MAKING
  • 4.11 DECISION COMMUNICATION
  • 4.12 COMMUNICATIVE ACTION
  • 4.12.1 Strategic vs communicative action
  • 4.13 SUMMARY
• CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
  • 5.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 5.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
    • 5.2.1 Sampling
    • 5.2.2 Target population
    • 5.2.3 Sample size
    • 5.2.4 Participants
  • 5.3 DATA COLLECTION
    • 5.3.1 Research procedures
  • 5.4 DATA ANALYSIS
    • 5.4.1 Thematic analysis
    • 5.4.2 Data analysis process
    • 5.4.3 Leximancer
  • 5.5 SUMMARY
• Chapter six: RESEARCH RESULTS
  • 6.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 6.2 FIELD STUDY
    • 6.2.1 Theme 1: Process
    • 6.2.2 Theme 2: Relationship
    • 6.2.3 Theme 3: Organisation
    • 6.2.4 Theme 4: Partnership
    • 6.2.5 Theme 5: People
    • 6.2.6 Theme 6: Areas
    • 6.2.7 Theme 7: Reputation
    • 6.2.8 Theme 8: Communication
    • 6.2.9 Theme 9: Structures
    • 6.2.10 Theme 10: Legal
    • 6.2.11 Theme 11: Stewardship
  • 6.3 FIELD STUDY
    • 6.3.1 Theme 1: Corporate
    • 6.3.2 Theme 2: Funding
    • 6.3.3 Theme 3: Decision
    • 6.3.4 Theme 4: Need
    • 6.3.5 Theme 5: Organisation
    • 6.3.6 Theme 6: Goals
    • 6.3.7 Theme 7: People
    • 6.3.8 Theme 8: Partnerships
    • 6.3.9 Theme 9: Legal
  • 6.4 FIELD STUDY
    • 6.4.1 Theme 1: NGOs
    • 6.4.2 Theme 2: Report
    • 6.4.3 Theme 3: Communication
    • 6.4.4 Theme 4: Beneficiaries
    • 6.4.5 Theme 5: Partnership
    • 6.4.6 Theme 6: Policy
    • 6.4.7 Theme 7: Stewardship
    • 6.4.8 Theme 8: Processes
    • 6.4.9 Theme 9: Relationship
  • 6.5 FIELD STUDY
    • 6.5.1 Theme 1: NGOs
    • 6.5.2 Theme 2: Strategy
    • 6.5.3 Theme 3: Management
    • 6.5.4 Theme 4: Report
    • 6.5.5 Theme 5: Legal
    • 6.5.6 Theme 6: Trust
  • 6.6 FIELD STUDY
    • 6.6.1 Theme 1: Organisation
    • 6.6.2 Theme 2: NGOs
    • 6.6.3 Theme 3: Communication
    • 6.6.4 Theme 4: Decision
    • 6.6.5 Theme 5: Need
    • 6.6.6 Theme 6: Trust
    • 6.6.7 Theme 7: People
    • 6.6.8 Theme 8: Feeding
    • 6.6.9 Theme 9: Board
  • 6.7 FIELD STUDY
    • 6.7.1 Theme 1: NGO
    • 6.7.2 Theme 2: Communication
    • 6.7.3 Theme 3: Organisation
    • 6.7.4 Theme 4: Reports
    • 6.7.5 Theme 5: Education
    • 6.7.6 Theme 6: Need
  • 6.8 FIELD STUDY
  • 6.8.1 Theme 1: NGOs
  • 6.8.2 Theme 2: Communication
  • 6.8.3 Theme 3: Partnership
  • 6.8.4 Theme 4: Organisation
  • 6.8.5 Theme 5: Beneficiaries
  • 6.8.6 Theme 6: Processes
  • 6.8.7 Theme 7: Legal
  • 6.8.8 Theme 8: Structures
  • 6.8.9 Theme 9: Policy
  • 6.9 FIELD STUDY
  • 6.9.1 Theme 1: Structures
  • 6.9.2 Theme 2: CSI
  • 6.9.3 Theme 3: Legal
  • 6.9.4 Theme 4: Partnership
  • 6.9.5 Theme 5: Communication
  • 6.9.6 Theme 6: Need
  • 6.9.7 Theme 7: Strategy
  • 6.9.8 Theme 8: Stewardship
  • 6.9.9 Theme 9: Reputation
  • 6.10 COMBINED CORPORATE FIELD STUDIES
  • 6.10.1 Theme 1: NGOs
  • 6.10.2 Theme 2: Decision
  • 6.10.3 Theme 3: Communication
  • 6.10.4 Theme 4: Stewardship
  • 6.10.5 Theme 5: Organisation
  • 6.10.6 Theme 6: Strategy
  • 6.10.7 Theme 7: People
  • 6.10.8 Theme 8: Process
  • 6.10.9 Theme 9: CSI
  • 6.10.10 Theme 10: Board
  • 6.10.11 Theme 11: Focus
  • 6.10.12 Theme 12: Legal
  • 6.11 FIELD STUDY
  • 6.11.1 Theme 1: Donor
  • 6.11.2 Theme 2: Corporate
  • 6.11.3 Theme 3: NGOs
  • 6.11.4 Theme 4: Organisation
  • 6.11.5 Theme 5: Board
  • 6.11.6 Theme 6: Trust
  • 6.11.7 Theme 7: Processes
  • 6.11.8 Theme 8: Legal
  • 6.11.9 Theme 9: Structures
  • 6.12 FIELD STUDY
  • 6.12.1 Theme 1: Donors
  • 6.12.2 Theme 2: Funds
  • 6.12.3 Theme 3: Strategy
  • 6.12.4 Theme 4: Communication
  • 6.12.5 Theme 5: Decision
  • 6.12.6 Theme 6: Need
  • 6.12.7 Theme 7: Trust
  • 6.12.8 Theme 8: People
  • 6.12.9 Theme 9: Legal
  • 6.12.10 Theme 10: Structures
  • 6.12.11 Theme 11: Stewardship
  • 6.13 FIELD STUDY
  • 6.13.1 Theme 1: Corporate
  • 6.13.2 Theme 2: Funding
  • 6.13.3 Theme 3: Funder
  • 6.13.4 Theme 4: Organisation
  • 6.13.5 Theme 5: Need
  • 6.13.6 Theme 6: People
  • 6.13.7 Theme 7: Report
  • 6.13.8 Theme 8: Stakeholders
  • 6.13.9 Theme 9: Business
  • 6.13.10 Theme 10: Policy
  • 6.14 FIELD STUDY
  • 6.14.1 Theme 1: Corporates
  • 6.14.2 Theme 2: Structures
  • 6.14.3 Theme 3: Need
  • 6.14.4 Theme 4: Organisation
  • 6.14.5 Theme 5: Board
  • 6.14.6 Theme 6: People
  • 6.14.7 Theme 7: Strategic
  • 6.14.8 Theme 8: Communication
  • 6.14.9 Theme 9: Brand
  • 6.15 FIELD STUDY
  • 6.15.1 Theme 1: People
  • 6.15.2 Theme 2: Corporates
  • 6.15.3 Theme 3: Church
  • 6.15.4 Theme 4: Children
  • 6.15.5 Theme 5: Organisation
  • 6.15.6 Theme 6: Relationship
  • 6.15.7 Theme 7: Legal
  • 6.16 FIELD STUDY
  • 6.16.1 Theme 1: Corporates
  • 6.16.2 Theme 2: Decision
  • 6.16.3 Theme 3: Maths (Mathematics)
  • 6.16.4 Theme 4: Policy
  • 6.16.5 Theme 5: Communication
  • 6.16.6 Theme 6: Stewardship
  • 6.16.7 Theme 7: Partnership
  • 6.16.8 Theme 8: Report
  • 6.16.9 Theme 9: Reputation
  • 6.16.10 Theme 10: Organisation
  • 6.16.11 Theme 11: Schools
  • 6.16.12 Theme 12: Structures
  • 6.16.13 Theme 12: People
  • 6.17 FIELD STUDY
  • 6.17.1 Theme 1: Corporates
  • 6.17.2 Theme 2: Decision
  • 6.17.3 Theme 3: Policy
  • 6.17.4 Theme 4: Communication
  • 6.17.5 Theme 5: Report
  • 6.17.6 Theme 6: Reputation
  • 6.17.7 Theme 7: Legal
  • 6.17.8 Theme 8: Trust
  • 6.18 FIELD STUDY
  • 6.18.1 Theme 1: Corporates
  • 6.18.2 Theme 2: Stewardship
  • 6.18.3 Theme 3: Policy
  • 6.18.4 Theme 4: Partners
  • 6.18.5 Theme 5: Processes
  • 6.18.6 Theme 6: NGO
  • 6.18.7 Theme 7: Reputation
  • 6.18.8 Theme 8: Trust
  • 6.19 COMBINED NGO FIELD STUDIES 9 TO
  • 6.19.1 Theme 1: Funding
  • 6.19.2 Theme 2: Corporates
  • 6.19.3 Theme 3: Communication
  • 6.19.4 Theme 4: Decision
  • 6.19.5 Theme 5: Reputation
  • 6.19.6 Theme 6: Report
  • 6.19.7 Theme 7: Policy
  • 6.19.8 Theme 8: Structures
  • 6.21 Summary
• chapter seven: FINDINGS
  • 7.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 7.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
  • 7.2.1 Research Question
  • 7.2.2 Research Question
  • 7.2.3 Research Question
  • 7.2.4 Research Question
  • 7.2.5 Research Question
  • 7.2.6 Research Question
  • 7.3 ADDRESSING THE PRIMARY RESEARCH QUESTION
  • 7.4 ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM STATEMENT
  • 7.5 COMMUNICATIVE DECISION-MAKING IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORPORATE AND
  • NGO RECIPIENTS AS NEW KNOWLEDGE
  • 7.6 MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
  • 7.7 SUGGESTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
  • 7.8 SUMMARY
  • 9.Appendix

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT