|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Corporate charity and corporate philanthropy in russia: an economic sociology analysis
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2016-3-115-130
Abstract
Several approaches exist that help explain the motivations for corporate charity and philanthropy. Structural functionalism associates these to the idea of solidarity, according to institutional approach they provide legitimacy for businesses, critical theory implies that they play an ideological role in sustaining the leading position of the dominating social class. This paper complements the existing models by treating these phenomena as a patrimonial type of exchange between business and government: the state provides the opportunity for the companies to do business on its territory in exchange for their loyalty.
About the Authors
O. Kuzina
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
M. Chernysheva
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Freeman E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pittman-Ballinger.
2. Gofman A. B. (2013). Social solidarity or regulation, Durkheim or Hayek? On two forms of social integration. In: N. E. Pokrovskiy, D. V. Efremenko (eds.). Sotsiologicheskiy Ezhegodnik 2012. Moscow: INION RAS (In Russian)
3. DiMaggio P., Powell W. (2010). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Ekonomicheskaya Sotsiologiya, No. 1, pp. 34—57. (In Russian).
4. Friedman M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, September 13.
5. Ganiga U., Mele D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 51-71.
6. Durkheim É. (1996). The division of labour in society. Moscow: Kanon. (In Russian).
7. Gautier A., Pache A. (2013). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 126, No. 3, pp. 343-369.
8. Krasnopolskaya I. I. (2013). The connection of corporate social responsibility and civil society: Theoretical ground. Grazhdanskoe Obshchestvo v Rossii i za Rubezhom, No. 2, pp. 2—7. (In Russian).
9. Giving USA (2015). The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2014.
10. Kuzina O. E., Chernysheva M. V. (2015). Corporate charity and responsibility: clarifying the concepts. Monitoring Obshchestvennogo Mneniya: Ekonomicheskie i Sotsialnye Peremeny, No. 4, pp. 154—165 (In Russian).
11. Greening D., Turban D. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 254-280.
12. Ledyaev V.G. (2009). Power, authority and domination in Russia: the main characteristics and forms. Politicheskaya Kontseptologiya: Zhurnal Metadistsiplinarnykh Issledovaniy, No. 4, pp. 61—94. (In Russian).
13. Griffin J., Mahon F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 5-31.
14. North D. (1997). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Moscow: Nachala. (In Russian).
15. Jones T., Wicks A. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 206-221.
16. Oleynik A. N. (2011). Power and market: A system of social and economic domination in Russia in the 2000s. Moscow: ROSSPEN (In Russian).
17. Kitzmueller M, Shimshack J. (2012). Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 51-84.
18. Peregudov S., Semenenko I. (2009). Business and the government in social sphere: confrontation or partnership? Mirovaya Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya, No. 6, pp. 58—66. (In Russian).
19. Kotler P., Lee N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
20. Polishchuk L. (2009). Corporate social responsibility or government regulation: An analysis of institutional choice. Voprosy Еkonomiki, No. 10, pp. 4—22 (In Russian).
21. KPMG (2013). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting.
22. Chirikova A. (2012). The government and business: interaction in the field of social policy in modern Russia. In: M. Gorshkov (ed.). Rossiya reformiruyushchayasya, Vol. 11. Moscow: Novyy Khronograf, pp. 169—190 (In Russian).
23. Kuhn T., Deetz S. (2008). Critical theory and corporate social responsibility: Can/ should we get beyond cynical reasoning? In: A. Crane et al. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Shishkin S. V. (ed.) (2005). Business as a subject of social policy: debtor, benefactor or partner? Moscow: HSE (In Russian).
25. Lev B., Petrovits C., Radhakrishnan S. (2010). Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 182-200.
26. Yarovoy A. I. The influence of power institutions on the development of corporate social responsibility in Russia and EU. Biznes. Obshchestvo. Vlast, No. 4, pp. 92—112 (In Russian).
27. Mauss M. (2002). The gift: forms and functions of exchange in Archaic Societies. L.; N. Y.: Routledge.
28. Arnove R. F. (1980). Philanthropy and cultural imperialism: The foundations at home and abroad. Boston: G. K. Hall.
29. Navarro P. (1988). Why do corporations give to charity? Journal of Business, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 65-93.
30. Baron D. (2001). Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 7-45.
31. Oliver Ch. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 145-179.
32. Benabou R., Tirole J. (2003). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp. 489-520.
33. Parsons Т. (1971). The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
34. Benabou R., Tirole J. (2010). Individual and Corporate Social Responsibility. Economica, Vol. 77, No. 305, pp. 1-19.
35. Porter M., Kramer M. (2006). Strategy and society. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84, No. 12, pp. 78-92.
36. Berman S., Wicks A., Kotha S., Jones T. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 488-506.
37. Roelofs J. (2003). Foundations and public policy: The mask of pluralism. Albany: SUNY Press.
38. Brammer S., Jackson G., Matten D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New perspectives on private governance. SocioEconomic Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 3-28.
39. Roman R., Hayibor S., Agle B. (1999). The relationship between social performance and financial performance. Business and Society, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 109-125.
40. Brekke K., Nyborg K. (2004). Moral hazard and moral motivation: Corporate social responsibility as labor market screening. University of Oslo Department of Economics Memorandum, No. 25.
41. Sahlins M. (1965). On the sociology of primitive exchange. L.: Tavistock.
42. Campbell D., Moore G., Metzger M. (2002). Corporate philanthropy in the UK 1985-2000: some empirical findings. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 29-41.
43. Sen S., Bhattacharya C. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 225-243.
44. Carroll A. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons. Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 39-48.
45. CECP (2015). Giving in numbers. In association with The Conference Board.
46. Sen S., Bhattacharya C., Korschun D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 158-166.
47. Clarkson M. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 92-117.
48. Simon A. (1991). Organizations and markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 25-44.
49. Davis K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 312-322.
50. Sundaram A., Inkpen A. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 350-363.
51. Dekker P. (2009). Civicness: from civil society to civic services? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 220-238.
52. Thorup M. (2013). Pro Bono? Philanthrocapitalism as ideological answer to inequality. Ephemera, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 555-576.
53. Vlachos P., Tsamakos A., Vrechopoulus A., Avramidis P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 170-190.
54. Domini A. (1992). What is social investing? Who are social investors? The social Investment Almanac. N. Y.: Holt.
55. Vogel D. (2006). The market for virtue. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
56. European Commission (2001). Green Paper - Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. Bruxelles: European Commission.
57. Weber M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
58. Fleming P., Jones M. (2013). The end of corporate social responsibility: Crisis and critique. L.: Sage.
59. Freeman E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pittman-Ballinger.
60. Friedman M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, September 13.
61. Ganiga U., Mele D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 51-71.
62. Gautier A., Pache A. (2013). Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 126, No. 3, pp. 343-369.
63. Giving USA (2015). The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2014.
64. Greening D., Turban D. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 254-280.
65. Griffin J., Mahon F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 5-31.
66. Jones T., Wicks A. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 206-221.
67. Kitzmueller M, Shimshack J. (2012). Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 51-84.
68. Kotler P., Lee N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility: doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
69. KPMG (2013). The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting.
70. Kuhn T., Deetz S. (2008). Critical theory and corporate social responsibility: Can/ should we get beyond cynical reasoning? In: A. Crane et al. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
71. Lev B., Petrovits C., Radhakrishnan S. (2010). Is doing good good for you? How corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 182-200.
72. Mauss M. (2002). The gift: forms and functions of exchange in Archaic Societies. L.; N. Y.: Routledge.
73. Navarro P. (1988). Why do corporations give to charity? Journal of Business, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 65-93.
74. Oliver Ch. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 145-179.
75. Parsons Т. (1971). The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
76. Porter M., Kramer M. (2006). Strategy and society. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84, No. 12, pp. 78-92.
77. Roelofs J. (2003). Foundations and public policy: The mask of pluralism. Albany: SUNY Press.
78. Roman R., Hayibor S., Agle B. (1999). The relationship between social performance and financial performance. Business and Society, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 109-125.
79. Sahlins M. (1965). On the sociology of primitive exchange. L.: Tavistock.
80. Sen S., Bhattacharya C. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 225-243.
81. Sen S., Bhattacharya C., Korschun D. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 158-166.
82. Simon A. (1991). Organizations and markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 25-44.
83. Sundaram A., Inkpen A. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 350-363.
84. Thorup M. (2013). Pro Bono? Philanthrocapitalism as ideological answer to inequality. Ephemera, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 555-576.
85. Vlachos P., Tsamakos A., Vrechopoulus A., Avramidis P. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 170-190.
86. Vogel D. (2006). The market for virtue. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
87. Weber M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Review
For citations:
Kuzina O., Chernysheva M. Corporate charity and corporate philanthropy in russia: an economic sociology analysis. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2016;(3):115-130. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2016-3-115-130
Views:
737
Email this article 
