Explore the vast range of titles available.

Pink ribbons, red dresses, and greenwashing—American corporations are scrambling to tug at consumer heartstrings through cause-related marketing, corporate social responsibility, and ethical branding, tactics that can increase sales by as much as 74%. Harmless? Marketing insider Mara Einstein demonstrates in this penetrating analysis why the answer is a resounding \"No!\" In Compassion, Inc. she outlines how cause-related marketing desensitizes the public by putting a pleasant face on complex problems. She takes us through the unseen ways in which large sums of consumer dollars go into corporate coffers rather than helping the less fortunate. She also discusses companies that truly do make the world a better place, and those that just pretend to.

Many studies over the past 20 years have looked at the response of charitable donations to tax incentives-the tax price elasticity of giving. Generally, authors have assumed this elasticity is constant across all types of giving. Using the 2001 Panel Study of Income Dynamics data on charitable giving, this paper estimates the tax price elasticity across six nonprofit subsectors, finding substantial variation. These results suggest that the fiscal effectiveness of tax deductibility depends on the type of donation involved. This has implications for both public policy and nonprofit management.

\"A surprising and fascinating look at how Black culture has been leveraged by corporate America, this book addresses some of today's most pressing public debates around allyship and diversity. Open the brochure for the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, and you'll see logos for corporations like American Express. Visit the website for the Apollo Theater and you'll notice acknowledgments to corporations like Coca Cola and Citibank. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial and the National Museum of African American History and Culture, owe their very existence to large corporate donations from companies like General Motors. And while we can easily make sense of the need for such funding to keep cultural spaces afloat, less obvious are the reasons that corporations give to them. In Black Culture, Inc. Patricia A. Banks interrogates the notion that such giving is completely altruistic, and argues for a deeper understanding of the hidden trans

As a critical contribution to the literature on social entrepreneurship, this paper provides structure and clarity to this concept, situating it within the context of charity and philanthropy as sources of social value creation. Identifying social entrepreneurship as creating both social and economic value, we discuss productive, unproductive, and destructive entrepreneurship in terms of social value creation. To illustrate these issues comparative case studies are presented on Microsoft Corporation and Grameen Bank. Even if their successes have been derived from different motivations, these highly innovative ventures have created significant economic and social value.

This study examines the relation between firms' corporate philanthropic giving and their performance in three other social domains - employee relations, environmental issues, and product safety. Based on a sample of 384 U.S. companies and using data pooled from 1998 through 2000, we find that worse performers in the other social areas are both more likely to make charitable contributions and that the extent of their giving is larger than for better performers. Analyses of each separate area of social performance, however, indicate that the relation between giving and negative social performance (cited concerns) only holds for the environmental issues and product safety areas. We find no significant association between corporate philanthropy and employee relations concerns. In general, these findings suggest that corporate philanthropy may be more a tool of legitimization than a measure of corporate social responsibility.

Food security, food sustainability, and malnutrition represent critical global challenges. Th urgency of comprehensive action is evident in the need for research collaboration between the food industry, agriculture, public health, and nutrition. This article highlights the role of philanthropy, of a non-profit organization, in supporting research and development and filling financial gaps. The article also explores the interplay of nutrition, agriculture, and government and policy, positioning philanthropy as a catalyst for transformative change and advocating for collaborative efforts to comprehensively address global food challenges. In addition, the discussion also underscores the ethical complexities surrounding charitable food aid, especially in terms of the dignity and autonomy of its recipients. The paper concludes by proposing future directions and implications, advocating for diversified intervention portfolios and collaborative efforts involving governments, businesses, and local communities. Apart from that, the importance of answering and alleviating ethical dilemmas related to food charity assistance needs to be a concern for future studies related to philanthropy because of the significant challenges faced by the contemporary food system, which include food security, health, and nutritional sustainability.

Since the first hybrid enabling law was passed in Vermont in 2008, the number of states offering hybrid forms has grown steadily, as has the number of entrepreneurs choosing statutory hybrids as a middle road between the for-profit and the nonprofit. Plaudits for and criticism of the hybrid form have also proliferated. Proponents have lauded their ability to facilitate socially conscious enterprise. Detractors have questioned the viability of the hybrid form and have suggested that they create more fiduciary conflicts than they resolve. To date, however, there has been no serious scholarly publication addressing the appropriate tax treatment of hybrid entities even though some supporters of hybrids have asserted that these forms deserve tax preferences. In this Article, we close that gap by thoroughly examining the arguments for tax preferences and the likely consequences that would flow from offering such preferences. We conclude that hybrid entities should not receive tax preferences traditionally offered to nonprofit entities because such an extension of tax benefits would likely have a deleterious effect, not only on the charitable sector and the public fisc, but also on hybrids themselves. Such an extension would almost certainly require a much clearer and narrower definition of public benefit that would undermine the much-toutedflexibility offered by the hybridforms, shift the financial risk of a hybrid not providing significant public benefit from its investors and donors to the public at large, place a substantial and likely unsustainable burden on the federal government to ensure that profitmaking does not trump providing public benefit, and threaten to undermine public support both for hybrid forms and for the existing tax preferences enjoyed by nonprofits. At the same time, we also conclude that some modifications to existing tax laws are appropriate in that they would acknowledge hybrids ' virtues while not exacerbating their potential weaknesses.

This article addresses our failing ability to hold business corporations to the public interest, or even to bare legality. It defends, in brief compass, the reasonableness of the expectation that corporations provide public benefits as consideration for their public privileges. But as succeeding sections recount, the traditional instrument for holding corporations to the public interest has gradually been undermined; and our standard, punitive tools for holding them even to bare legality, suffer from inherent limitations and fail adequately to deter corporate misconduct. A more adequate approach would be to supplement the current punitive regime with reform of corporate governance in directions that would decrease the temptation of managers to engage in misconduct in the first place. Several possibilities are considered, with the most promise found in allowing corporations to be owned by Danish-style \"industrial foundations.\" Among its advantages, the reform is realizable and would reduce incentives to corporate misconduct without compromising on performance. Industrial foundations also customarily direct a portion of corporate profits to charity, in eifect reinstating the norm that for-profit corporations provide public benefits.

Background Industry sponsorship of public health research has received increasing scrutiny, and, as a result, many multinational corporations (MNCs), such as The Coca-Cola Company and Mars Inc., have committed to transparency with regard to what they fund, and the findings of funded research. However, these MNCs often fund charities, both national and international, which then support research and promote industry-favourable policy positions to leaders. We explore whether one industry funded charity, the International Life Sciences Institute (‘ILSI’), is the scientifically objective, non-lobby, internationally-credible body that it suggests it is, so as to aid the international health and scientific communities to judge ILSI’s outputs. Methods Between June 2015 and February 2018, U.S. Right to Know), a non-profit consumer and public health group, submitted five U.S. state Freedom of Information requests (FOIs) to explore ILSI engagement with industry, policy makers, and/or researchers, which garnered a total of 17,163 pages for analysis. Two researchers explored these documents to assess the activities and conduct of ILSI against its purported objectives. Results Within the received documents we identified instances of ILSI seeking to influence research, conferences, public messages, and policy, including instances of punishments for ILSI bodies failing to promote industry-favourable messaging. We identified ILSI promoting its agenda with national and international bodies to influence policy and law, causing the World Health Organization to withdraw from official relations with what it now considers a private sector entity. Conclusions ILSI seeks to influence individuals, positions, and policy, both nationally and internationally, and its corporate members deploy it as a tool to promote their interests globally. Our analysis of ILSI serves as a caution to those involved in global health governance to be wary of putatively independent research groups, and to practice due diligence before relying upon their funded studies and/or engaging in relationship with such groups.

How do you choose the right charity to match a righteous cause, so that your donation really does count? Why do people give, and how can it be done responsibly and effectively? What is philanthropy - could wealthier Australians do more to support the not-for-profit sector? Explains the latest trends in giving and explores the ethics and effectiveness of legitimate charities.