博物館運作的新契機：英國企業(yè)慈善行為動機和戰(zhàn)略慈善參與研究（英文）

陸坤

Abstract The decrease in government funding on the art and culture sectors in the UK forces museums to seek alternative financial support. For some large companies， as they are legally required to declare their corporation social responsibility information in their annual reports， corporate giving can be an opportunity to enhance corporate goodwill. However， corporate philanthropy in the art and culture organisations is rare in the UK： sponsorship is more common in corporate giving programs. This study suggests there is a lot of potential for businesses to support culture， and indicates a low involvement in strategic philanthropy currently. The data shows that corporate giving decisions are influenced by multiple stakeholders in the corporate context. Public attitudes also promise a positive perspective on corporations that support culture， which indicates the new opportunity for the art and culture organisations operation with corporate philanthropy.

Keywords the art and culture sectors， strategic corporate philanthropy， attitudes of the public

0 Introduction

The spiralling attention on the terms of "corporate social responsibility" and "sustainability" amid large companies indicates that the sole social responsibility of a business is in using its resources to maximise its profits[1]. However， with the awareness of the existence of corporate culturally social responsibility among the public， some corporations may face certain pressure from the public expectation that corporations give back to their local community.

Despite the fact that Britain has a highly diverse and important cultural heritage， possessing several world-famous museums， galleries and significant heritage sites， Art & Business reported a continuous decline in business donations to cultural organisations， and sponsorship has recently become the mainstream of business support， accounting for 60% of total business investment over the last four years， which emphasises that businesses in the UK logically see supporting art and culture as a means of trading， but the return needs to be seen to go back to their corporate objectives[2]. Whereupon some studies[3-4] suggest that practicing corporate philanthropy is a more effective ways with even more potential for return than corporate sponsorship. In contrast to corporate sponsorship， which targets extending markets and enhancing profits， corporate philanthropy focuses more on creating a culturally social impact and connecting with local communities， which can indirectly benefit museums in the long term.

For the purpose of providing museums a guide on seeking alternative financial support， this article aimed to determine the motivations behind corporate giving to art and culture， gain a comprehensive understanding of the expectations of those corporations which have engaged in philanthropic activities with arts and cultural sectors， evaluate the efficiency of the corporate philanthropy model and analyse public attitudes towards this practice.

1 Methodology

1.1 Selection of participants

In this research， three groups of participants are recruited： corporations that engage in corporate giving to art and culture， corporations that engage in corporate giving in other areas and members of the public in the UK. Corporations that not engage in corporate giving to art and culture can provide valuable information about their preference of selecting their grantees and their reasons for not supporting art and culture.

（1） Selection of business participants： The sample of firms is drawn from the FTSE350 index dated 23rd January 2015. These 350 companies are the constituents of this index and are listed by the London Stock Exchange as the largest companies in the UK.

（2） Selection of public participants： To further investigate the drivers of corporate philanthropy， public opinions and attitudes toward corporate giving is also collected in the research. Creating social value and enhancing corporate reputation are two of the main purposes of corporate giving.

1.2 Method of collecting primary data

（1） Collecting data from businesses： In order to obtain valid primary data from companies in the FTSE350 index about the motivation of corporate giving to art and culture， both methods of questionnaires and interviews are taken into consideration by the researcher. Although secondary data from corporate reports may provide official and valid information， there are some questions related to the research objectives which need further investigation from the corporate corporation social responsibility managers. An internet-mediated questionnaire was selected for collecting primary data from businesses.

（2） Collecting data from the public： Potential public participants are include university students and local community residents in Sheffield. Potential student participants are contacted by email through the university online system. Local adult participants are initially approached by the researcher in person in the local community， and shall receive the questionnaire via email after obtaining their contact information and consents. Google Form are also used in designing the questionnaire for the public， in order to present a clear format and understandable questions.

1.3 Questionnaire design

（1）? Questionnaire design for businesses： In order to present a clear layout and provide high accessibility to participants， Google Form are used for designing questionnaires for both business and public participants. As Google products are widely used in business and other fields， participants would feel much more familiar with Google Form and find it user-friendly. In order to gain valid data as much as possible， two separate questionnaires for the two groups of corporations are designed： one for participants involved in corporate giving to art and culture potential corporate; another for participants who are not involved in corporate giving to art and culture （to know the reasons why they do not support art and culture in a philanthropic way）. Both questionnaires for businesses contain one page of general questions about their companies， both quantitative and qualitative data are collected in this study.

（2）  Questionnaire design for the public： Understanding public attitudes and opinions toward corporate giving to art and culture can provide valuable information which can help corporations better practice their corporate philanthropy strategy. The questions for indicating their attitudes and opinions toward corporate giving use a 10-point numeric rating scale. To provide an understandable questionnaire for the public， the questions are designed to be as short and easy as possible. The questions are designed based on existing theories， such as the relation of a firm's reputation and the amount they donate or employees' volunteering. Moreover， the questions are also designed to determine whether the public have a better impression of businesses that engage in supporting art and culture than those that do not.

2 Findings

2.1 Motivations of corporate giving to art and culture

In the framework of corporate philanthropy motivation of Young and Burlingame[5]， the stakeholder model is the most comprehensive and shapeless conceptual framework with no clear presentation of the reaction of the diverse stakeholders.

The stakeholder model of Young and Burlingame[5] is based on the understanding that the motivation of corporate philanthropy is influenced by different stakeholder groups. Therefore， it contains all the elements of the other three models. Moreover， the characteristic that distinguishes the stakeholder model from the others is the presence of secondary stakeholders （Table 1）. The interests of the primary stakeholders （shareholders and managers） are included in the neoclassical model. Therefore， if a company fits the characteristics of the stakeholder model， it should contain elements of other models and include secondary stakeholders.

In this research， only one corporation that engages in corporate giving to art and culture responded to the questionnaire， which means that the data is not representative. However， it is obvious that some specific industries engage more in corporate giving to art and culture. In Table 2， corporations from the finance industry have the most significant connection with corporate giving to art and culture. This is primarily because financial institutions have similar products and services with their competitors， and their corporate image becomes crucial in influencing public purchase intention and attracting more clients[6]. However， surprisingly， companies in the resource industry also have very frequent relation with supporting art and culture which has not been mentioned in the previous studies. According to their report， most of them use art and culture as a vehicle of building deeper connection with the communities where they operate rather than attracting interest from upper class mentioned by Mescon and Tilson[7]. Moreover， most resource companies are located in underdeveloped areas， and the respondent stated that societal benefits and expectation from the community are the main reasons of their corporate giving to art and culture. Therefore， the corporate giving to art and culture programs in the resource industry might contain both the political and stakeholder models of giving motivations.

In this research， there is no evidence of purely altruistic motivation in corporate giving to art and culture. In Figure 1， all companies in the sample stated the importance of moral obligation to become a good corporate citizen in their motivation. Moreover， even in the company with shareholders' personal interests， altruistic motivation does not dominate the drivers of corporate giving， at least， with a combination with political motivation. This finding supports the statement of Galaskiewicz and Colman.

2.2 The involvement of strategic corporate philanthropy in the UK

Based on the theory and framework of context-focused philanthropy suggested by Porter and Kramer[3]， it provided a more comprehensive standard of strategic corporate philanthropy （Table 3）. Due to the limited responses from corporations that engage in corporate giving to art and culture， the data collected from the firms that support other social issues will be analysed as an alternative approach in the study. Hopefully， a general understanding of the involvement of strategic corporate philanthropy in art and culture can be reflected through the data analysis.

（1） Selecting grantees

As mentioned above， linkage of corporate core competence and potential recipients plays an important role in creating corporate benefits through corporate giving activities. The data suggests that corporations that do not engage in corporate giving to art and culture， do to some extent have a connection with their grantees. In addition， all respondents present a clearly focused location where they practise corporate philanthropy in the communities where they operate.

It is also vital that corporations seek their potential grantees actively rather than waiting for them to request a grant. The proactivity of corporations determines that there is a sufficient consideration and plan for the practice of corporate giving programs. Moreover， targeting potential recipients can also enhance opportunities for the success of the cooperation.

It can be seen from Figure 4 that three companies actually selected their grantees actively. It is notable that a number of companies may donate their financial resources to local charities and have a long-term relationship with non-profit organisations. However， this kind of corporate giving may eliminate the advantage of corporate philanthropy such as providing expertise and contributions to the communities. However， the respondent that engaged in corporate giving to art and culture mentioned that the selection of grantees is determined through dialogue with the local community. This also reflects that corporate giving activities are aimed at creating social value rather than corporate benefits.

In addition， respondents were also asked a question about their selection process committee. Four of them had their own committee or department charged with the selection process while two had not， the result indicates that most corporate giving activities are formal evaluated and considered by certain managers. However， the internal political model may appear within this circumstance. It cannot be eliminated that selection of grantees may contain individual preference and interests.

Porter and Kramer pointed out that sharing the same community can help corporations to trace the results of the philanthropic activities more easily. However， corporations rarely measure the efficiency and impact of their corporate giving programs[3].

In fact， only one of the six measure their corporate giving activities and the measurement is through "social return on investments and business return metrics". The respondent that engaged in corporate giving to art and culture also did not measure the impact of their corporate giving activities. It is a surprising figure as measurement should be a vital part of strategic corporate philanthropy. Without measurement， corporations would find it hard to determine whether the corporate giving is creating social value and corporate benefits. The backfire effect may appear in certain corporate giving projects. Besides， companies may find it hard to perceive the deficiency of their previous giving projects and adjust it in a timely way. Moreover， measurement can also aid in further corporate giving plans and strategies.

（2） Attracting other funders

Porter and Kramer also mentioned that corporations should strive to become a respectable and credible donor of their grantees[3]. Surprisingly， three of the six companies actually invite other funders for their grantees. However， the respondent that engages in corporate giving to art and culture does not practise such strategic behaviour. Not many corporations in the UK have the awareness to help their recipient to attract more investments and supports， thus addressing the free rider problem.

（3） Improving the performance of grantees

It can be seen from Figure 5 that corporations in the UK lack the awareness of helping their grantees to improve their performance. Actually， a total of five companies didn't have any plans to help improve their grantees， including the corporation that engaged in supporting art and culture. Porter and Kramer pointed out that compared with individual donations and foundations， the most significant advantage of corporate philanthropy is that they can provide corporate expertise and knowledge that others are unable to offer[3]. It can be the main factor that differentiates strategic corporate philanthropy to other general philanthropic activities. It suggests few cases of companies helping recipients to grow and improve in the UK. The respondents also suggested that delivering corporate expertise， transferring knowledge and operational improvement is the main approach of helping their grantees to be better performing.

（4） Advancing practice

Although corporations in the UK may lack awareness about maximising the value of corporate giving projects in a creative and innovative way， most of the companies in the FTSE350 have their own departments to take charge of corporate giving activities. Moreover， all the respondents pointed out that the amount of corporate giving is pre-determined， indicating the importance of formal budgeting in their corporate giving plans. Most of the respondents suggested that pre-tax profits is the main factor that determines their level of corporate giving， only one company stated that their corporate giving budget is relatively fixed every year.

Specifically， the corporation which did measure their corporate giving projects suggested the outcome and project impact actually determined their corporate giving level， presenting a significant characteristic of strategic corporate giving.

（5） Expectation

It indicates that 2/3 corporations would like to expect some impact or return from their corporate giving， which determines the rarity of altruistic motivations in corporate philanthropy in the UK. Moreover， the expectation of corporate giving projects may limit their initial motivation of practicing philanthropy.

Figure 6 illustrates that corporations have more expectations of brand positioning and enhancing public interest in their industries. Surprisingly， none of the respondents use their philanthropic activities as a means of expanding markets. This finding also highlights that the market expansion is the main difference between corporate philanthropy and corporate sponsorship. Furthermore， it indicates that political motivation may play a more dominant role in corporate giving initiatives.

（6） Conclusion of business finding

In Figure 7 the research indicates a significant presence of the stakeholder model in corporate philanthropy in the UK， supporting the point of Campbell[8] that corporate philanthropy is often a combination of at least two motivations. In addition， the results also shows a widespread involvement of stakeholder management in their corporate philanthropy programs， which also cater the study of Mior and Taffler[9]. The existence of market expansion distinguishes corporate philanthropy from corporate sponsorship. Moreover， there is no evidence to suggest that tension and contradictions can arise among corporate philanthropy motivations. On the other hand， the results suggests that strategic philanthropy can create both corporate and social benefits， which also involve stakeholder management. Hence， different corporate philanthropy functions and motivations are mutually enhancing[8].

Strategic corporate philanthropy does not present itself significantly in the UK. Corporations are likely to put more attention on the process of practising the philanthropic activities rather than other external effects.

Most of the corporate respondents suggested that they practice the philanthropic activities as an indispensable part of their corporate strategy， developing the sustainability of their businesses with valid plans and formal budgeting. Some companies also presented innovation and creativity in their corporate giving strategy. Nevertheless， the results show a considerable lack of pre-research and measurement in corporate philanthropy in the UK. This indicates the immaturity of practicing strategic corporate philanthropy in the UK， meaning companies are often unable to maximise the potential value of corporate philanthropy.

2.3 Public opinion

A total of 50 questionnaire responses were obtained from Sheffield universities and communities. In this research， five hypotheses are suggested in terms of the public opinion toward corporate philanthropy to art and culture.

（1） Demographic data

This part of data includes variables such as gender， age， education levels， income levels and knowledge about corporate philanthropy of respondents in this research.

In Table 4， the study has more female respondents than male respondents. Female accounted for 86% which male 14% of the sample. This probably because that female are more likely to be interested in charitable giving. Williams pointed out that women tend to be more responsive to giving in a crisis situations and more likely to view charitable giving as a means of supporting communities and helping others[10].

（2） Reliability and validity analysis

In this research， Cronbach's Alpha will be used as a standard of measuring reliability to enable a comprehensive understanding of the consistency of respondents. Generally， the Cronbach's Alpha>0.7 indicates a high level of reliability. In Table 9， the questionnaire for public opinion shows a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.920， which demonstrates a high reliability of the responses.

For measuring the validity of the questionnaire responses， criteria-related validity will be used in this research. As the validity of a questionnaire is always influenced by the reliability， the formula of Dick and Hagerty will be used below：

As can be seen from Table 1， the internal validity indexes are all above 0.909， hence the validity of the questionnaire for the public suggests a very positive result.

（3） Testing of hypotheses

H1： Compared with general corporate philanthropy， the public in the UK will hold more positive attitudes to corporate giving to art and culture. （1=very negative， 10=very positive）

In this research， the T-test of two independent samples （public attitudes to corporate giving and public attitudes to corporate giving to art and culture） will be used for testing H1.

Table 10 provides the statistics of public attitudes towards corporate giving and public attitudes toward corporate giving to art and culture. Both groups have 50 samples in each， with sample mean of 5.92， standard deviation of 2.842， standard error mean of 0.402 （attitudes to corporate giving） and sample mean of 6.36， standard deviation of 2.805， standard error mean of 0.397 （attitudes to corporate giving to art and culture）.

According to table 11， the correlation coefficient of "public attitudes to corporate giving" and "public attitudes to corporate giving to art and culture" is high， as well as the significance.

Null hypothesis： Public in the UK will not change their impression of the company， if it practises corporate giving to art and culture.

A T-test of a single sample will be used for testing H2， the results showed in Table 13： This illustrates the T-test results of the sample， with t-statistics of 15.286， a degree of freedom of 49， 95% confidence interval of （5.58， 7.26）， 2-tailed significance of 0.000 which is < 0.05. The data indicates "public impression of corporate giving to art and culture" has significant distinction from negative impression. Therefore， H2 is supported.

H3： The public in the UK will hold a more positive impression of the company if it contributes more financial support to corporate philanthropy. （1=absolutely disagree， 10=absolutely agree）

Null hypothesis： The public in the UK will not change their impression of a company if it contributes more financial support on corporate philanthropy.

Table 14 illustrates the T-test result of the single sample， with t-statistics of 16.785， 49% degree of freedom and a significance of 0.000. The confidence interval also suggests a result of （5.23， 6.65）. Hence， results indicate that public will have more positive impression on a company if it providing more financial support. Therefore， H3 is supported.

H4： Compared with companies which only contribute financial support， the public in the UK will hold a more positive impression of the company if it contributes volunteering and expertise on corporate philanthropy. （1=absolutely disagree， 10=absolutely agree）

Null hypothesis： Public in the UK will hold the same impression of companies that only contribute financial support and companies that also contribute volunteering and expertise on corporate philanthropy.

Table 15 illustrates the T-test results of the sample， with t-statistics of 15.733， degree of freedom of 49， confidence interval of （5.77， 7.47） and significance of 0.000. Therefore， H4 is supported.

H5： Public will not hold negative attitudes to the company if it wants something in return from the corporate giving activities. （1=absolutely disagree， 10=absolutely agree）

Null hypothesis： The case of a company that wants something in return from the corporate giving activities will not influence the public attitudes toward the company.

Table 16 illustrated the t-statistics of 14.805 and confidence interval of （4.20， 5.52）， which indicated the public attitudes have significant difference from the negative attitude. Therefore， H5 is supported.

（4） Discussion of public finding

The public attitudes and opinions toward corporate giving to art and culture are obviously positive. The result also suggests that it can be even more positive than other corporate giving activities. Art and culture sectors are rarely considered as a means of practicing corporate social responsibility by most companies in the UK， primarily because few businesses have connections with them or other options are more achievable.

With an intention of becoming a responsible and good corporate citizen， corporations making decisions on which areas they should contribute to also need to cater to their consumers' expectations. social issues such as education and health which have deep connections with human well-being are the most attractive aspects to corporate giving and community promotion. In Figure 8， It is clear that education has largest support from the public， and environment ranks the second. This reflects an attitude of the public in which social aspect they are most concerned about. Children， young people and health， actually become the main subjects of corporate philanthropy and charity in FTSE 350 constituents.

Figure 8 Social issues that public thinks should be primary areas of corporate giving

However， as H1 suggested， even though art and culture are not the first concern of the public in the UK， they hold a more positive impression of companies that engage in art and culture. On the one hand， the public may think corporate support of art and culture is more special than others. It may define the companies as creative and innovative businesses. On another hand， as Hoeken and Ruikes suggested， art can creative the image of a civilized and sophisticated company， which impresses the public more than other factors[6]. Besides， the activity of support of art itself may become more important than how much money and volunteering it contributes and who is the grantee. Therefore， it is possible that art is commercial in nature and supporting art may have more potential for bringing monetary and non-monetary benefits to the businesses.

As different from previous studies， the public intention of purchase in the UK shows a positive reaction of corporate giving to art and culture （Figure 9）. However， it does not reject the importance of the quality of corporate products and services. It suggests that with similar products and services， the public would prefer the corporations with a higher cognition of corporate responsibility.

The data analysis also supported H3 which determines that the amount of financial support plays an important role in enhancing corporate reputation through corporate philanthropy. This study result also supports the views of Brammer and Millington[11].

The results also suggested the importance of volunteering and expertise in corporate giving activities. Porter and Kramer already mentioned the significant advantages of utilising volunteering and expertise in strategic corporate philanthropy. They are effective weapons to create social impact and strengthen corporate competence for a business. Besides， they are the key factors that make corporate philanthropy different from charity， individual donations and foundations[3]. The responses determined that corporate volunteering and expertise contribution can also create a more positive impression of the business than others which only provide financial support. It suggests an idea of the more the business gives the more of a positive reputation and image they gain from their communities.

H5 supports the previous studies of Dean[12-13]， which determined that there are no negative effects on corporate reputation and image if a company wants something back from the philanthropic giving. However， it is necessary to note that few corporations publish their corporate giving as non-altruistic， as they want to build a responsible corporate image in the communities in which they operate. If the corporate support activities are obviously commercial， they would use the term "sponsorship" rather than "philanthropy". Generally， this research indicates that the public in the UK understand that the nature of firms is profit-oriented.

Moreover， as corporate philanthropy is at the top of the corporation social responsibility pyramid， the public may consider corporations which do not practice corporate giving as immoral businesses[14]. The public in the UK may hold perspectives that corporations should practice their social responsibilities through contributing their resources back to their communities.

As can be seen from Figure 10， 54% respondents thought corporations should give back part of their profits to their communities and society. It indicates that corporations may have pressure and expectation from the local public， especially if their businesses are very profitable. Basically， corporation social responsibility becomes an important tool to assess corporate ethical performance. Nominations for corporation social responsibility awards such as FTSE4GOOD can provide corporate goodwill and non-current assets which can help the businesses to have further promotion and achievement in the future.

This research indicates a low engagement with corporate giving to art and culture in the UK. Most companies support art and culture for more commercial purposes such as sponsorship， others use art and culture as an appendage of community investments. Few corporations in the FTSE350 index see art and culture as their priority area of corporate philanthropy， often targeting children， youth and health care instead. Although publicly listed organisations are required legally to publish their social responsibility reports， they have a right to choose which areas they want to contribute to. However， the art and culture sectors are hard to be related with corporate core businesses， and are also not the primary social issues that need support in the public's minds.

The motivations behind corporate giving in the UK combines all the aspects of the motivation model of Young and Burlingame， and the stakeholder model appears particularly significantly. Although existing studies pointed out that there is no evidence of a purely altruistic motivation of corporate giving， which proved in this research. However， most companies in the research present a high involvement of moral obligation in their corporate giving initiatives. The political model， however， plays a more important role in corporate motivation than other models. Enhancing reputation and strengthening brand position become the main reasons for practising corporate philanthropy in the UK. In corporate giving to art and culture， however， apart from sponsorship， corporate benefits were less often considered as the motivation of giving activities. As few corporate core businesses are relevant to art and culture， companies may want to create social value in their corporate giving to art and culture.

The involvement of strategic corporate philanthropy is not significant in corporate giving in the UK. Although most of the publicly listed companies such as FTSE350 constituents have independent departments in charge of corporation social responsibility or sustainability， corporate giving activities are less well-researched and fewer companies measure the impact of corporate giving projects. Nonetheless， the research indicates a high involvement of volunteering in corporate giving projects rather than solely financial support. This presents the proliferation in corporate awareness of facilitating corporate employees engagement in social projects to improve employees' morale and build stronger relation with local communities. There is also some evidence to suggest the involvement of providing expertise and corporate service in their corporate giving projects， which also shows the characteristics of strategic corporate philanthropy， creating both corporate and social value.

This research also demonstrates that certain industries have more involvement in corporate giving to art and culture， but there is no evidence to show that these industries can gain more benefits or more impact from corporate giving activities than others. More importantly， the approaches towards practising corporate giving projects may influence more on the impact and return from those projects. Most of the companies in the research suggested that they have a formal plan on their corporate philanthropy programs. However， the strategy may put more attention on how they actually practise the contribution， with other external elements easily ignored. Moreover， companies tend to have different expectations of their corporate giving projects， and those expectations fit their initial motivations of practicing corporate social responsibility.

Children， youth and healthcare are the main areas of corporate giving in the UK. Nevertheless， in a similar way to art and culture， few corporate core businesses have an association with them. Therefore， the relevance to businesses may not have a significant effect in selecting their recipients. Contributing corporate resources to children and healthcare are the main trends in practicing corporate social responsibility among organisations in the UK. This stereotype among the practice of corporate philanthropy causes the lack of corporate giving to art and culture in the UK. Finding a more efficient way to conduct corporate philanthropy and being creative is arguably more important than which areas they contribute to.

Public opinion in this research presented a positive attitude toward corporations that support art and culture. Local people may have an even more positive impression of corporations with corporate giving to art and culture than those which support other areas. The unique nature of art and culture actually impresses the local public on a higher level. It also suggests that， to some extent， engaging in art and culture can influence the purchase intention among the public. It may be hard to say that supporting art and culture can bring monetary benefits to corporations， but it functions significantly in strengthening brand position and enhancing reputation. Besides， the results also reflect a more positive public attitude on corporate volunteering in their corporate philanthropy than providing solely financial support. The public response suggests that corporations should be bold and innovative in corporate philanthropy， and supporting art and culture may create more social value and corporate benefits than they expect.

Reference

[1]Friedman Milton. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits[J]. New York Times， 1970（9）： 211-214.

[2]Mermiri Tina. Private investment in culture： The sector in and post recession[J]. Cultural Trends， 2011（3-4）： 257-269.

[3]Porter Michael E， Kramer Mark R. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy[J]. Harvard Business Review， 2002（12）： 56-68.

[4]Bruch Heike， Walter Frank. The keys to rethinking corporate philanthropy[J]. MIT Sloan Management Review， 2005（47）： 49-59.

[5]Young Dennis R.， Burlingame Dwight F. Paradigm lost： Research toward a new understanding of corporate philanthropy[M]// Young Dennis R.， Burlingame Dwight F. Corporate philanthropy at the crossroads. Bloomington： Indiana University Press， 1996.

[6]Hoeken Hans， Lenneke Ruikes. Art for art's sake？ An exploratory study of the possibility to align works of art with an organization's identity[J]. Journal of Business Communication， 2005（3）： 233-246.

[7]Mescon Timothy S.， Tilson Donn J. Corporate philanthropy： A strategic approach to the bottom-line[J]. California Management Review， 1987（2）： 49-61.

[8]Campbell D.， Moore G.， Metzger M. Corporate philanthropy in the U.K. 1985-2000 some empirical findings[J]. Journal of Business Ethics， 2002（1-2）： 29-41.

[9]Moir Lance， Taffler Richard. Does corporate philanthropy exist？ Business giving to the arts in the UK[J]. Journal of Business Ethics， 2004（2）： 149-161.

[10]Williams Robert J. Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy[J]. Journal of Business Ethics， 2003（1）： 1-10.

[11]Brammer Stephen， Andrew Millington. Corporate reputation and philanthropy： An empirical analysis[J]. Journal of Business Ethics， 2005（1）： 29-44.

[12]Dean Dwane Hal. Associating the corporation with a charitable event through sponsorship： Measuring the effects on corporate community relations[J]. Journal of Advertising， 2002（4）： 77-87.

[13]Lee Hanjoon， Park TaeKyu， Moon Hyoung Koo， et al. Corporate philanthropy， attitude towards corporations， and purchase intentions： A South Korea study[J]. Journal of Business Research， 2009（10）： 939-946.

[14]Carroll Archie B. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility： Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders[J]. Business Horizons， 1991（4）： 39-48.