The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, qut
Download 4.28 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Pro bono services
- Product donations
- Disaster response
- Non-disaster response
- Crowdsourcing
- Shared economy
- In-kind product valuation
International contextCorporate givingIn less than 50 years corporate philanthropy has become a legitimate activity in most large and multinational firms (Gautier and Pache 2015). One particular area of growth is in-kind contributions. In the United Kingdom (UK) over the last few years cash contributions have fallen as the proportion of employee and in-kind contributions have risen sharply (Charities Trust 2013). The most notable forms of corporate in-kind donations include pro bono services and product donations. Pro bono servicesThere is no universally-accepted definition of ‘pro bono’ and surprisingly limited comparative analysis of pro bono work across various jurisdictions (Maguire, Shearer and Field 2014). The provision of free professional services is not limited to the law profession, with professionals in medicine and business also donating time and services. However, this section will focus on the donation of free legal aid given the unique regulatory frameworks surrounding legal pro bono work. A recent article by Maguire, Shearer and Field (2014) compared the protocols and definitions of pro bono work in Australia, the US, the UK and Singapore. Based on practices in other countries the authors suggest that Australia should extend definitions of pro bono to include financial contributions and the evolution of new partnership models. For example in the US definitions of pro bono work recognise financial assistance in lieu of practitioner time commitment. This is in contrast to Australia in which any financial contribution is considered separate to a firm’s pro bono program. Lessons from the UK and the US also suggest that there is greater potential for partnerships between law firms and universities in order to promote pro bono practices. Partnerships can include activities such as legal research, education material and the secondment of company staff, which can open new pathways for non-legal assistance. There is great variance in the practices and definitions of pro bono around the world as revealed in a survey into the pro bono practices in 71 jurisdictions (Latham & Watkins LLP 2008). Much greater research is needed into how jurisdictions can enable or constrain pro bono activities, including the lessons that can be learned from innovative pro bono practices in other countries. Product donationsDistinct from donations of time and expertise, product donations encompass a range of items including computer equipment, food and other retail equipment. Despite an increase in corporate in-kind giving (Charities Trust 2013) there is limited research on how gifts are used effectively once they leave the donors hands, as well as the organisational capacity challenges associated with managing product donations. Gazley and Abner (2014) in their study of a national product donation program in the US found that storage and processing of product donations were common challenges for respondents. Performance measures were also rarely used for the donation program with half of the participating organisations not putting a dollar value on in-kind gifts at all. How NPOs account for noncash donations as well as how they can effectively manage corporate product donations is a challenge, particularly for smaller organisations. The donations of in-kind goods in the context of aid to developing countries has generated criticism around whether these donations may negatively impact local markets and undermine long-term development (Wydick, Elizabeth and Brendan 2014). Studies have found that, while benefiting the recipients, in-kind donations have the potential to negatively impact upon local markets (Brooks and Simon 2012; Tadesse and Shively 2009). However, results are mixed. (Wydick, Elizabeth and Brendan 2014), in a case study into TOMS shoe donation in El Salvador, found weak evidence that donated shoes negatively impacted the local shoe market. Disaster responseThe challenge of managing in-kind donations during domestic and international disaster response is a key issue in the emergency management literature. For example, after the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami, donations of inappropriate clothing, expired medication and perished food flooded the region (Telford and Cosgrave 2006). Unsolicited in-kind donations consume the time and resources of emergency workers and can cause significant problems, such that some charities no longer accept in-kind donations for disaster relief. While the donation of used personal items are valuable to NPOs in non-disaster circumstances, donations can complicate the delivery of valuable government relief in emergencies. Often coined the ‘second disaster’ in terms of the transportation, management and disposal of unsolicited in-kind donations (Islam et al. 2013), research in humanitarian logistics has started to examine how to overcome the challenges associated with in-kind giving in disaster responses (Ahsan and Tullio-Pow 2015; Islam et al. 2013; Van Wassenhove and Martinez 2012). Donation registries and online portals are one means through which in-kind donations can be managed in disaster relief. After Superstorm Sandy in the US, US$750,000 of in-kind donations were generated by repurposing Amazon’s wedding registry as a donation registry (Islam et al. 2013). This enabled volunteers to control the flow of donations by requesting types and quantities of donations on an as-need basis. Another documented example is the US online portal Aidmatrix, which enables donors (mostly businesses) freedom to offer what they have rather than choose from a prescribed list of times. Both mechanisms are valuable in managing in-kind donations in disaster situations. However, also understanding the factors that contribute to an individual’s decision to donate in-kind items is important for encouraging cash donation in emergency relief. Ülkü, Bell and Wilson (2015) found that the higher the delivery cost on an in-kind donation, the higher the probability that cash will be donated. Alternatively, if the cash donation is easily accessible and cheap the donor will be more likely to donate cash. Non-disaster responseRecyclingA large number of NPOs operate thrift stores in order to support their social mission (such as Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity and Oxfam). In the US, 7.9 million individual tax payers claimed deductions of nearly US$12 million in 2010 for donations of used clothing, electronics and other household items (Islam 2013). While the characteristics of thrift store donors have been examined (Mitchell, Montgomery and Rauch 2009) there are no cross-national examinations into the context of the thrift store sector and the institutional enablers and barriers. For example, in the US donors can make tax deductions on clothing and household items that are in good used condition or better (Internal Revenue Service 2016a). This is not the case in Australia, with tax deductions for donations only extending to monetary gifts, property and particular cultural and heritage gifts (Australian Taxation Office 2015a). In the UK, donation incentives for NPOs are enabled by the Gift Aid scheme. An income tax relief designed to benefit charities, many thrift stores in the UK request donors to take part in Gift Aid in order to reclaim the tax on donations by taxpayers. The program increases the value of donations by allowing charities to reclaim the Basic Rate Income Tax on the gift, increasing the donation by 25% (TNS 2014). Food banksSurplus food distribution is a growing practice around the world and has become institutionalised in the social service landscape (Midgley 2014). Since the first food bank was opened in the US in 1967 food banks have been established in many parts of the world with auspices such as the European Federation of Food Banks and the Global Food Banking Network supporting the development of charitable food banking (Riches 2011). Food banks can address issues of food insecurity and poverty as well as enable food retailers to contribute to social welfare issues. While food banks can be described as a win-win solution because salvaging edible foodstuffs can ‘feed the hungry’ and reduce the amount of refuse in landfill, critics question whether they are a sustainable solution. Concerns have been expressed over the poor quality and limited nutritional value of the food items (Teron and Tarasuk 1999) as well as the disempowering nature of food banks for recipients (van Der Horst, Pascucci and Bol 2014). The high profile nature of food banks may also reassure the public that food insecurity is being addressed (Booth, Park and Glomb 2009) and therefore deflect the underlying causes of hunger. The critique of food banks is not new and calls have been made to map and assess the range of initiatives as well as develop a uniform and consistent definition of food banks and their beneficiaries (Garrone, Melacini and Perego 2014; Gentilini 2013). CrowdsourcingCrowdsourcing occurs when: ‘(a) an actor (individual, team or organisation) tasks external sources with solving a problem or executing a task; and (b) the actor identifies these sources (individuals, teams or organisations) through a call broadcast to a crowd’ (Bauer and Gegenhuber 2015, 663). Technological advancements and innovative online platforms have meant that it generally occurs over the internet, although broadcast calls can also occur through informal networks, public spaces and professional communities. Crowdsourcing has been examined in the for-profit sector, particularly around participatory approaches to product innovation. NPOs have begun to embrace crowdsourcing for social innovation, yet there has been little documented evidence of its practice and use within this context. Füller, Hutter and Fries (2012) examined the motivations behind participant involvement in a social innovation crowdsourcing initiative. They found that while monetary prizes were the preferred incentive, the desire to support a social project was another motivator that encouraged contribution to the cause. Amtzis (2014) examined the use of crowdsourcing among Nepali NPOs and how the use of social media played a significant role in the way that development projects were promoted, funded and participated in. Social networking platforms can overcome geographic and economic barriers faced by smaller NPS as it is relatively easy to develop an online presence that can be leveraged for gaining project support. However, greater research is needed in order to understand the extent to which NPOs use crowdsourcing, the preferred crowdsourcing platforms and in what contexts it should be used. Shared economyThe shared economy is a growing phenomenon and a product of an increasingly networked and online society. It can be defined as ‘online platforms that help people share access to assets, resources, time and skills’ (Allen and Berg 2014; Barret 2015; Wosskow 2014, 13). PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) estimated that globally the shared economy is worth £9 billion and is set to rise to £230 billion by 2025 (PwC 2014). Examples include shared accommodation (such as Airbnb), office and commercial space, shared skills (such as time banking) and shared approaches to transport (for example Über rideshare platforms). While the shared economy may represent a hybrid form of giving, as people can save money using shared assets and time, the nature of the transaction often involves a fee for service or, in the case of time banks, time credits that can be used for every hour volunteered. As such, these platforms do not fall neatly within traditional definitions of volunteering and charitable giving as they are characterised by an expectation of reciprocity and there is no transfer of ownership. Table 9.2 makes a distinction between reciprocity and compensation; however, given the relatively blurred boundaries of the nature of the shared economy, the terms gift giving and sharing are often used interchangeably. It is also important to note that while there may be instances of NPOs engaging with the shared economy, the majority of the available literature and examples are within the for-profit context. Table 9.2 Distinctions between reciprocity and compensation (Kennedy 2015, 7) Sharing
expectation of reciprocity: Yes, in communicative models expectation of compensation: No transfer of ownership: No. Extension of control Gift giving expectation of reciprocity: Yes, as a non-contingent possibility expectation of compensation: Yes, as a non-contingent possibility transfer of ownership: Yes Commodity Exchange expectation of reciprocity: No expectation of compensation: Yes, negotiated transfer of ownership: Yes
carefully review practices and policies for in-kind donations consider whether to accept gifts in-kind measure in-kind gifts at fair value, and source reliable sources of information and pricing inputs. In Australia the Institute of Chartered Accounts found that the majority of NPOs do not recognise nor explain the accounting treatment of in-kind donations. Only 36% of NPOs made disclosures of non-reciprocal transfers of goods and services (The Institute of Chartered Accountants 2006). This may be attributed to a lack of clear guidance in accounting standards at the time of data collection. However, many NPOs still find the valuation of in-kind donations to be challenging, especially when accounting and valuation expertise is limited and there is little comparable or benchmark information on financial value (CPA 2014). Overall there is limited empirical research into the valuation policies of in-kind donations and how in-kind gifts are used once they leave the donor’s hands (Gazley and Abner 2014). Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2016 2016 -> 2017 afoCo Landmark Scholarship Program 2016 -> Instructions for the Preparation of Camera-Ready Contributions to the Conference Proceedings 2016 -> Step student Scholarships for Year 10-13 2016 -> The united church of canada 2016 -> Idan raichel biography – May 2016 Brief Producer, keyboardist, Lyricist, composer and Performer Idan Raichel 2016 -> An introduction to centre’s interventions expanding access to justice 2016 -> Sanchar Shakti 2016 -> Unit analysis should help here. We want number of bananas 2016 -> The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates 2016 -> The Great Heat and the Rhode Island Deep Water Bay Scallop (Argopecten irradians) Fishery 1875-1905 Download 4.28 Mb. Share with your friends:
|