Introduction
Corporate Philanthropy
Theoretical Background
Different Drivers: Taking into Account the Employee Perspective
Employee Involvement in CP
Methodology
Organisation | Type of company | Total number of shop floor employees interacted with | Total hours of fieldwork | Dominant method for charitable decision-making |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Retail bank | 15 | 4 | C (staff vote to choose charity partners from a short-list compiled by managers) |
2 | Gambling company | 2 | 1 | C (staff vote for a short-list of charities from a long-list compiled by managers) |
3 | Energy company | 3 | 2 | B (self-selecting staff charity committee) |
4 | High street restaurant chain | 2 | 1 | A (staff have some discretion in how they fundraise for charity partner chosen by management) |
5 | Manufacturing company | 2 | 2 | B (self-selecting staff charity committee) |
6 | Retail bank | 2 | 3 | B (staff consulted ad hoc on potential charities) |
7 | Higher education institution | 12 | 4 | A (staff can organise fundraising activities but no management support) |
8 | Supermarket | 5 | 3 | B (staff can nominate charities) |
9 | Supermarket | 3 | 3 | B (staff charity committee with one staff member leading on fundraising as part of paid duties) |
10 | Supermarket | 4 | 2 | B (staff can nominate charities) |
Findings
RQ1. How are Lower Level Employees Involved in Decisions Related to CP?
When democratic procedures were introduced, the goal of improving staff morale through ‘gestures of goodwill to employees’ is frequently cited, for example, one manager said: “The main aim is to give staff a ‘feel good’ factor” (organisation 8), and another noted: “The value of this stuff is from a [staff] engagement perspective” (organisation 4).If we’re investing a large sum, say half a million pounds or more, then we have to think it through and have rigour and be sure we’re leveraging all the value. But if it’s smaller sums we’re more relaxed about it. Our matched funding scheme, where we give a maximum of £250 to any charity, is more a gesture of goodwill to an employee to say: ‘we recognise and support what you’re doing in the community’. It’s not a Big Brother approach, we don’t say ‘here’s £150 for your kid’s football team, now put our logo on their shirts and show us the press cuttings!’ (organisation 6, gateway interview with manager, italics added for emphasis)
This instrumental approach expressed by managers differs from that expressed by shop floor staff in our study, whose drivers and motivations incorporate altruistic and ethical concerns for chosen charitable beneficiaries (see findings below). This is in line with the suggestion that collective empathy at the employee level infuses the rational CP decision-making of managers with emotions (Muller et al 2014). Yet staff also respond to this ‘engagement’ aim, as an employee in the same workplace just quoted says: “Some of this stuff makes me feel proud to be part of the company” (organisation 5).There was no link to the brand, we just wanted to get everyone engaged… we [the managers] step back from the choice because at the end of the day we want an engaged workforce who feel good about the company (organisation 5, gateway interview with manager).
When I get a good approach from a charity I think: that sounds like an exciting and inventive way to develop our people.
Whilst a trend away from ‘chairman’s choice’ and towards more open procedures for selecting beneficiaries was apparent, the expectation that CP would serve business objectives remained intact. Even when donations were generated by employee fundraising rather than allocated from profits, managers spoke of being, “directed by a business need to be visually active in certain areas” (TSCP conference). Avoiding dis-benefits was also a managerial concern: “We’re always looking for win–win scenarios. There are certain charities we would steer [the staff] away from, if they were going to cause us [the company] issues” (organisation 3, gateway interview with manager).We look to the Third Sector for non-traditional skills development that offer employees meaningful and memorable opportunities.
I’m not fully aware of the process for selecting the charity of the year, it’s just announced and then we fundraise for it. (organisation 1).
In these situations, managers could be slightly dismissive of the resulting charitable choices (for example by labelling them ‘the usual suspects’) and believed that as managers they still retained control, when necessary, over the final decision:[Our] measure of success is not on the selection of beneficiaries but on the number of employees who take up the opportunity [to express a charitable choice] (organisation 1, gateway interview with manager).
However in some workplaces the shift towards wider control over CP does appear to be more embedded and rationalised:The shop floor staff make the decisions, but when we started out we did give them a steer… Intuitively they do the right thing. (organisation 10, gateway interview with manager).
Credible data on levels of participation in staff votes were not readily available, but where numbers were provided or guessed at, it appears turn-out rates in voting procedures are around 20% or lower. This was not perceived as necessarily problematic by senior management, given the ‘means over ends’ approach described above and also exemplified in this quote:Previously this has been a bit ad hoc, where it’s been the branch manager’s interest, whereas now we’ve got a framework… The people who actually make the decision are the people on the shop floor. The people who work on the shop floor tend to live in the local community, so they’ve got a better insight into who the best charities are [whereas] lots of managers generally live farther afield. (organisation 8).
But the data from the shop floor offer an alternative perspective on low participation in consultations. Staff describe being reluctant to participate in decision-making, such as voting for a corporate charity partner, due to issues related to timing, having other workplace priorities and lacking confidence in their ability to make the ‘right choice’, as this exchange during a staff meeting in organisation 1 illustrates:Even when people don’t take up the offer to help choose charities, they feel good about the fact that it’s on offer (organisation 1, gateway interview with manager)
Therefore, when employees do not take up the opportunity to participate in CP decision-making processes, the reason is not necessarily due to lack of interest on their part, but could be due to other factors such as lack of confidence, bad timing or unwillingness to participate in a process that feels tokenistic.Hari: “[the email about choosing charities] comes round on a Friday when we’ve just got too much to do, there’s no time to sit down and think about it properly”Iris: “Yeah, it’s better not to fill the survey in, if you don’t know enough to make good choices”Hari: “It’s an important decision and you can’t rush it”Iris: “I’d rather someone picked who knew more about it”
RQ2. What Criteria are Involved in CP Decision-Making by Lower Level Employees, in Particular in Relation to the Selection of Charitable Beneficiaries?
This extract from an informal discussion in organisation 10 reflects similar sentiments:It’s a really difficult question to answer, how we pick which charities get help. It all depends on the individual’s circumstances. If someone has got, say, cancer in their family they have an affinity with that. Children’s charities are always popular – people always want to do things for children (organisation 9)
Shop floor staff expressed disquiet about the types of causes prioritised by corporate leaders, which were often perceived as less worthy than causes they would choose. A typical comment, reflecting on a major company investment in an arts organisation, was: “Theatre is like a luxury, you can live without a theatre” (organisation 1). Widening CP decision-making therefore enables shop floor employees to exert influence in line with their personal views on the ‘right’ types of charitable causes that deserve support. In all the workplaces studied it was found that cancer, children and hospices were the causes most frequently mentioned as inspiring the most enthusiastic workplace fundraising efforts among the staff, as these quotes further illustrate:Researcher: “Do you support the same charities in your private life that you want your company to support?Anna: “I think it’s the same”.Ben: “Yeah, I’d always pick the one that I felt good about”.Charles: “I think you make it personal to yourself, don’t you? If someone in your family had cancer then you can relate to that…”Dawn: “I don’t think we think ‘this is the one that’d be best for [the company] to support’, I think we think: “This is the one I would support”, so I’d choose that.”
Lots of people [colleagues] do tend to think of cancer charities – and yes, that’s number one in my book. And children's charities for the obvious reasons. (organisation 7)
Both managers and shop floor staff recognised that widening employee participation in the selection of charitable beneficiaries creates an in-built advantage for certain charities, especially well-known ‘big brands’ and those working in cause areas that enjoy widespread support. A manager commented that “The [staff vote] is not very fair, the same few charities win them all.” (TSCP conference) and in another workplace a staff member explained that:One of our colleagues unfortunately died in one of the hospices, so the [local] hospice is very close to us. And I’ve banged the drum for [another local] hospice because my father died there. So there is a personal feel for the hospices that we’re trying to raise funds for. (organisation 6)
Despite this potentially undesirable consequence of exacerbating the widespread mismatch between the most urgent causes and the distribution of philanthropic funding (Friedman 2013), the prioritisation of employees’ philanthropic preferences does have the advantage of respecting the moral claims made on the shop floor, which, according to study participants, increases their likelihood of being enthusiastic participants in the ensuing CP activities.We as individual employees have the chance to nominate who we want as our Charity of the Year [and] it’s always a big charity. (organisation 6).
RQ3. Which CP Decisions and Activities are Most Likely to Improve Employee Morale and Foster Other Corporate and Social Goals?
Explanations for why staff choose to get involved in workplace fundraising rely on the same sentiment: “Yeah, we all love it. It’s just something to get involved in, isn’t it?” (organisation 9).X charity was fantastic – they had people abseiling down walls and all sorts of things [big smile]. It was great fun (organisation 6).
The expectation that workplace fundraising will generate fun and a diversion from the daily monotony of working life was dominant in all the observed workplaces discussions, articulated most vividly in these comments from a woman working in a supermarket:Jane: “We did a sponsored bike ride where we just had to keep two exercise bikes going in the banking hall all day”Keith: “It was really good, cos we got a load of the soldiers up from the barracks, didn’t we?” [lots of laughter]Laura: “But they wanted a go, everyone wanted a go. It was good fun.”
The same woman noted that fun-centred workplace fundraising can achieve an additional desired goal of breaking down barriers between shop floor staff and customers:You’ve got to make it fun, cos you don’t get many fun days down there, believe me. Down there on the shop floor. You know, it’s hard work. People are working constantly. You know, they come in and do their shift, lugging boxes, putting things on the shelves, bringing things out of the chillers you know, and they do work hard. So it’s nice to have a bit of fun, you know? I think morale would be really bad if we didn’t, you know, let our hair down. (organisation 9).
The link between fun and charitable activity is reinforced by the inclusion of fundraising in the wider brief of organising workplace social activities. As this woman working in a retail environment explains:You go down the chilled meat [aisle], and there’s some guy standing there in a blue wig and some Elton John blue sunglasses. It’s just a bit of fun and the customers love it as well, they comment and they chat to [us] then, you know.
Further, the data show that in addition to creating opportunities for light-hearted fun, workplace fundraising can also subvert—albeit fleetingly—the normal corporate hierarchies. In the name of charity, shop floor staff are empowered to take the lead and request their male managers to undertake activities that can be embarrassing and occasionally painful. For example:I’m on the [workplace] social club committee so it’s also my job to keep people interested in things like that – we do theatre trips and days out – it’s just a matter of keeping morale up… We try and get the store involved as much as we can, you know. Everybody. We dress up here. When we do [breast cancer charity fundraising] events you’ll see ‘em all with like the pink cowboy hats and the boa feathers and grass skirts and they’ll be sitting on the check-out. (organisation 10).
The words, tone and laughter in the following exchanges demonstrate the importance of managers being willing to humiliate themselves in the service of fundraising. Shop floor colleagues in organisation 1 reminisced:Last year [to raise money for the charity of the year] we had all of our section leaders and half our managers having their legs waxed and chests waxed. [Animated voice] Yeah! It was cool. We were meant to have a waxer come in, but she let me down at the last minute so we let the colleagues come and do it [lots of laughter]. Yeahh! [more laughter]. Some of them had their chests done, some of them had their backs done, some of them had their legs done. (organisation 9–female employee)
Similarly, the shop floor employee in charge of organising staff fundraising in organisation 9 explained:Natalie: “We were at [a local shopping mall], do you remember? We were running round with a trolley?”Olive: “Oh my god yeah, going through [the shopping mall] with a trolley, and we had our branch manager at the time, we was dressed up as pirates, wasn’t we?”Multiple voices: “Yeah”Pam: “Dressed up as a pirate, in the trolley, and we basically had a bucket [to collect donations]… Bless him. He’ll do anything for charity that bloke, he really will. Once he waxed his legs in the banking hall”Multiple voices: [lots of noises of agreement and approval, e.g. ‘yeah’].
The reason for employee fundraising being driven ‘from the bottom’ may be pragmatic, as this worker suggests:Mary: “We’re having some stocks made. I’ve actually just been offered a gunge tank as well, and the managers will go in those. People will pay money to throw stuff at ‘em.”Researcher: “Will the managers be willing to do that?”Mary: “Yeaaaah!! [loud, lively voice]… They enjoy it, it’s a bit of fun. Nobody would do it if they didn’t want to. At Easter we all had our faces painted, all the managers were walking round with their faces painted.”
But there is also a sense in which senior managers are thought to consciously loosen their grip in order to achieve the desired objectives of raising morale and building teams:[Fundraising] tends to be set up and run by people [like us] right at the bottom of the organisation. The more senior you are, the less time you spend at your desk, or there’s less time to get involved and they can’t promise to be there on a certain day, for example for a cake sale. (organisation 7)
When hierarchies are temporarily suspended in pursuit of a fundraising goal, wider business benefits can be achieved in terms of building relationships and trust between different tiers of a company, as this final quote from an employee shows:We did a charity bike ride, instead of being a boss and their team, all of a sudden we were just ten guys on bikes, riding along, enjoying each other’s company (organisation 6)
Having presented our findings in relation to each of our three research questions, the next session discusses how this study advances our theoretical understanding of employee involvement in CP.I found myself climbing a mountain with a member of our Executive Committee – the most senior woman in our company! And there was also a new graduate there too. On the trip it didn’t matter if they earn ten times more than you, if they climbed slower then you had to all slow down and go at their speed (organisation 3 – female employee).
Discussion
Lessons for Companies When Conducting CP
Rationale for charity choices | Driver for involvement | |
---|---|---|
Business leaders (Board, CEO and senior management) | Appropriate brand alignment (a ‘good fit’) between the charity and the company A respectable partner with the right image, a proven track record and a professional approach to working with the private sector A strategic partnership offering continuity and potential for a long-term relationship Value for money relative to alternative charities and relative to gaining benefits such as staff development opportunities | Improving the reputation and credibility of the company Marketing opportunities to attract and retain customers Access to HR benefits (staff recruitment, retention and development) Publicity and public relations opportunities Other tangible benefits–e.g. access to celebrities and entertainment opportunities for the board and directors |
Shop floor staff | Similar rationale to charity choices made in personal life Based on personal connection with, and experiences of, charities and causes Preference for causes that are easily understood by them, have widespread appeal and are believed to make good use of donations Preference for well-known charity brands and local charitable organisations | Supporting causes they personally care about Pursuit of ‘having a laugh’, fun and carnival Desire to relieve the monotony of working day Subverting normal workplace hierarchies by temporarily asserting shop floor dominance over managers |