The NA710N

The more you give, the more you get. It’s a good motto for all to live by and a great one for the most successful in our society. Especially now during the holiday season, when volunteer organizations kick into full gear to provide food and toys for the poor and everyone on television—at least for a month—becomes almost as generous as Oprah, Americans focus on being thankful for what they have and doing their part to help others live a better life.Many fear that this year will mark a deviation from the norm on American generosity as the nation faces the biggest economic crisis of the generation, especially for corporations that are staggering to make profit. Ironically, however, the way to make more money may be to simply give more away, and many of the weakest companies have a proven philanthropic spirit. On an individual level, this theory has been debated ad nauseum; the most recent study argues, “Wealthy people who give away 10 percent or more of their income to charity tend to build a higher net worth— and to be happier—than other wealthy individuals who give less.” Whether that holds for corporations—especially those who have gone from choosers to beggars within the bookends of 2009—is anyone’s guess, but history shows private giving may be a key element to corporate success.

On the buyer level, Americans do seem to prefer consuming when they know part of what they are paying goes to helping someone less fortunate. A recent study on consumer preferences and charitable donations shows that while consumers prefer buying items when a percentage of the payment goes to charity, only in occasions where the national spotlight shines on a specific cause is it possible for a company to make more money by giving, assuming 10% of the item price goes to charity. While the study cites the enormous disaster of Hurricane Katrina, is it also possible for the argument to extend to a more widespread albeit less jarring problem? Now more than ever, private charities are playing a pivotal role in the survival of socioeconomically disenfranchised Americans. Unemployment is nationally in the double digits, banks are faltering, and more Americans find it difficult to make due with their salaries and promptly pay their bills. Unlike Katrina, however, this is a disaster that started at the top and has trickled down. As much as corporate donations are imperative for many charities to function, corporations were the first victims and continue to be jeopardized by the economic crisis. Since corporate donors tend to be essential to the finances of private charities, their failure breaks a circle of economic stability: corporations give to charities, who give back to communities, who then use their money to support corporations.

Many on the left express outrage on finding that the government they consider responsible for taking care of its most needy would spend outrageous sums of money to pay for bank bonuses for the outrageously wealthy. On the right, believers in the free market feel that forcing corporations to owe the government a favor will compromise the integrity of our economic regime. Both may be happy to learn that some of that bailout money will be cycling through the nation from some of the most charitable corporations, who needed a hand-up themselves this year.While many companies that were too big to fail may not have had the means with which to be magnanimous this year, many of the companies that were in the top ten of bailout money received were also near the top of most charitable lists even before they went into the red. General Motors received the fourth-largest government bailout package but made an appearance as Forbes’ eighth most charitable company in 2007 (a year when Americans were praised for being head-and-shoulders above the rest of the world in charitable donations.Fannie Mae, also on both lists, ranked first or second in the nation among all foundations in donations between 1998 and 2004, often surpassing the totals of independent foundations such as the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Lilly Endowment. Bank of America donated $211 million in 2007, landing them the number two spot on Forbes’ list, and made a commitment to keeping their similarly large 2008 donation numbers stable in 2009, and kept their word. Citigroup made both the 2007 and 2008 lists, as well. While four of the top ten is not exactly a home run in donations, the fact that there is a culture of generosity in corporate America strong enough to push corporate welfare recipients to donate millions of dollars is something we should be proud of as a nation, and every dollar helps.

Whether they can repeat their performances for 2009 is still up for speculation, but many of those companies’ histories indicate that at least part of their hearts have been in the right place for some time. And for those who doubt the efficiency of donating money—though many of the greatest corporate donations are also in volunteer time and in-kind product donations—the organizations receiving the donations efficiently serve a variety of purposes. Bank of America’s philanthropic funds go in large part to a program called Neighborhood Builders, in which the funds are funneled directly into local charities in underprivileged neighborhoods where those that live there know how the fix problems best. A few months ago, GM raised $160,000 for the United Way, which, among thousands of programs, helps many local organizations with holiday events. And, of course, the Salvation Army—a favorite of Target, Time Warner, and Citibank, among others—has a long history of helping those in need across the globe, whether through disaster relief, recreational programs, or simply feeding the hungry. The help is reaching those who need it, and the government was quick to help these corporations keep the cycle moving. In the worst of times, only through helping each other will we get back on our feet, and the pleasant surprise of corporate philanthropy indicates that the American spirit of giving is still aflame this holiday season.

0 people like this post.

Like