Caso de Estudio Voluntariado CorporativoW-078

8/6/2019 Caso de Estudio Voluntariado CorporativoW-078

1/25

1

Social Movements Producing Social Capital:

The Case of Corporate Volunteering

Katharina Spraul

University of Mannheim

Assistant Professor

Chair and Department of Business Administration, Public & Nonprofit

Management

L 5, 4

Germany, 68131 Mannheim

Tel: +49 621 181-1730

Fax: +49 621 181-1728

e-mail: [email protected]

Fifth Organization Studies Workshop Social Movements, Civil Societies and

Corporation, 26-28 May 2010, Margaux, France

Keywords: corporate social responsibility; corporate volunteering; resource

dependence theory; social capital; social movements

PRELIMINARYNOT FOR QUOTATION WITHOUT AUTHORS

PERMISSION


2/25

2

Social Movements Producing Social Capital:The Case of Corporate Volunteering

Katharina Spraul

University of Mannheim

Summary

Stemming from the USA, the volunteering of corporate employees has been

established in many globally active companies. Its importance for research is reflected

by a significant number of (mostly) empirical scientific articles investigating a variety

of aspects that have been published in a very short period of time (Basil et al. 2009;

Booth et al. 2009 Brown and Ashcraft 2007; Gilder et al. 2005; Houghton et al. 2009;

Muthuri et al. 2009; Peloza and Hassay 2006; Peloza et al. 2009; Peterson 2004a;

Peterson 2004b; Voort et al. 2009). This paper is focusing on a structured corporate

volunteering program within a globally active company from both the theoretical and

the empirical perspective. From a theoretical point of view, it will interpret forms of

corporate volunteering as social movements contributing to the social capital of thecompanies. Additionally, the empirical part of the study undertakes a network analysis

of a corporate volunteering program in a multinational enterprise to investigate its actual

contribution to the companys social capital.


3/25

3

Introduction

As corporate organizations are embedded in civil society, they are confronted with

societal or stakeholder demands (Carroll 1991; Clarkson 1995). Two large streams of

research are dealing with this topic. On the one hand, the field of organization studiesprovides several theories to investigate this relationship. Above all, resource

dependence theory (Pfeffer and Salancik 2003) is focusing the dependence of

organizations on contingencies in their external environment (Hillman et al. 2009:

1404). On the other hand, social movement analysis aims at explaining the processes of

emergent organizations that are able to establish stakeholder pressure on corporations

(McAdam and Scott 2005: 9; Zald and Ash Garner 1987). Generally, social movements

are characterized as a purposive and collective attempt of a number of people to

change individuals or societal institutions and structures (Zald and Ash Garner 1987:

123). Social movements are able and willing to establish pressure on companies (den

Hond and de Bakker 2007: 901; Kassinis and Vafeas 2006: 145; Lee 2008: 65).

Highlighting the similarities of organization studies and social movement

analysisis a fruitful attempt, not only from the researchers perspective (McAdam and

Scott 2005: 9). Empirical evidence suggests that the various relationships between

corporate organizations and civil society are continuously establishing network

structures and collaborations with nonprofit organizations and social movements

(Rowley 1997: 887). This is leading to a new dilemma between partnering and

establishing pressure for both companies and social movements (Doh 2008: 288-289).

The importance ofnetworks is highlighted again by both organization studies and by

social movement analysis (e.g., Campbell 2005: 61; Granovetter 1983: 202;

Klandermans and Oegema 1987: 520).

Against this background, this study will focus on a special type of socially

responsible behavior of corporate organizations. It will analyze the network character of

a corporate volunteering program and aims at answering the following research

questions:

1. How can corporate volunteering be framed theoretically?

2. How does a structured corporate volunteering program contribute to an

organizations social capital?


4/25

4

Theoretical Background

Organization Theory

In organization studies, several theories provide explanations for beneficial inter-

organizational collaboration, such as network theory, resource-based theory and

institutional theory (Di Domenico et al. 2009: 887). Among these, resource

dependence theory (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978; Pfeffer and Salancik 2003) constitutes

one of the most influential approaches dealing with an organizations embeddedness in

civil society. Considering firms as open systems depending on contingencies in their

external environment, resource dependence theory assumes that corporations can never

behave context-free (Hillman et al. 2009: 1404). Due to incomplete information and the

direct influence of external factors, they do not only operate in a framework of

uncertainty. In fact, they are also embedded in a network of interdependencies with

other organizations (Pfeffer 1987: 26). Therefore, future success cannot be guaranteed

and managers have to take action to reduce these structures of uncertainty and

dependence. The attempt to increase the control over resources vital for success is

typically contemplated a worthwhile strategy in this regard (Hillman et al. 2009: 1404-

1405, with reference to Pfeffer 1987: 26).

Although not mentioned explicitly, Pfeffer and Salancik (2003) consider the

relevance of interorganizational relations in the preface of their second edition (Pfeffer

and Salancik 2003: xxiii). As these social ties can provide individuals and their

organization privileged access to resources (Portes 1998: 21), social capital may play a

crucial role as a resource for organizations. Within the research tradition of European

(most dominantly Bourdieu 1985) and U.S.-American scientists (e.g., Coleman 1988;

Putnam 2000) on social capital, two perspectives can be distinguished. Firstly, the

bridging view focuses on external relations; secondly, the bonding perspective is

directed towards internal characteristics of collective actors (Adler and Kwon 2002: 19-

21). Since neutral definitions of social capital refuse to adopt one of these two

viewpoints, they are beneficial if external and internal linkages of a firm are analyzed

(Adler and Kwon 2002: 21). Neutral definitions of social capital rely on the

information, trust, and norms of reciprocity inhering in ones social networks

(Woolcock 1998: 153) or on the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded

within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by

an individual or social unit (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998: 243).


5/25

5

The next paragraph will elaborate on the determinants and instruments of corporate

social responsibility, a concept that is both explicable by resource dependence theory

and by social capital.

Determinants and Instruments of Corporate Social Action

A huge body of literature deals with questions of firms social behavior. The research

on corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be classified in four viewpoints (according

to Maignan and Ferrell 2004: 4): CSR as social obligation, CSR as stakeholder

obligation, CSR as ethics driven, and CSR as managerial processes.

The first perspective, CSR as a social obligation, was launched by Bowen (1953). It

implies the (perceived) obligation to follow those lines of action which are desirable in

terms of objectives and values of the society. Even in the 1930s, a substantial change

in our public opinion with regard to the obligations of business to the community could

be observed (Dodd 1932: 1153). This perspective has later been advocated by Carroll

(1979), who differentiated economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic obligations as

various types of social obligations and later established the CSR pyramid (Carroll 1991)

expressing a hierarchical order among these.

Starting in the mid-1990s, a number of scholars perceived that the notion of CSR as a

social obligation was too broad to facilitate the effective management of CSR. These

researchers (e.g., Clarkson 1995; Donaldson and Preston 1995; Jones 1995; Wood and

Jones 1995) argued that enterprises are not responsible toward the society in general but

toward those who affect (or are affected by) their business activities. These different

actors or constituencies (Clarkson 1995: 98) are called stakeholders, a term which

(again, such as CSR itself) has been derived from the context of corporate law as an

antonym of shareholders or stockholders and covers different groups, from investors

over employees to the government. This second perspective is known in the literature as

CSR as stakeholder obligation and consequently defines it as the companys activities

and status related to its perceived stakeholder obligations. Fassin (2009: 128) counts

6,000 academic publications up until 2008 dealing with the stakeholder topic. Due to

the fact that a firms responsiveness towards stakeholders might be able to contribute

positively to corporate financial performance (explained by resource dependence), this

approach is seen as instrumental stakeholder theory (Orlitzky et al. 2003: 405).

The third perspective of CSR as ethics driven argues that seeing CSR only as a

(social or stakeholder) obligation fails to provide normative criteria and ethical issues to

evaluate CSR activities (e.g., Donaldson and Preston 1995; Jones 1995; Swanson 1995).


6/25

6

It is interrelated with business ethics that is concerned with good and bad or right and

wrong behavior and practices that take place within a business context (Carroll and

Buchholtz 2003: 170; den Hond et al. 2007: 2). The incorporation of CSR was a

challenge since it pushed aside the mainstream business ethics methodology (van

Liedekerke and Dubbink 2008: 273).

In contrast to the three perspectives mentioned above, a number of scholars have

depicted CSR in terms of concrete organizational processes (often analyzed under the

label corporate social responsiveness). This fourth perspective understands CSR as an

umbrella term for several managerial processes. For example, Wartick and Cochran

(1985: 767) and Wood (1991: 713) outlined that social issues management and

environmental assessment constitute two sets of managerial processes useful to take up

a proactive social responsibility stance. On this note, CSR is also defined as asensemaking process with a cognitive, linguistic, and conative perspective (Basu and

Palazzo 2008: 125). From a critical point of view, these initiatives can also be perceived

as a paternalistic expression of corporate power (Swanson 1995: 50).

Against the background of various different conceptualizations of CSR, newer

publications concretize corporate social behavior as corporate social action (Marquis

et al. 2007: 926) or as corporate social change activities (den Hond and de Bakker

2007: 901). Thereby, corporate social action is defined as behaviors and practices that

extend beyond immediate profit maximization goals and are intended to increase social

benefits or mitigate social problems for constituencies external to the firm" (Marquis et

al. 2007: 926). These behaviors and practices include charitable giving, investments in

social initiatives, in-kind donations and employee volunteering (Marquis et al. 2007:

926).

These four research streams can be interpreted as distinct but interrelated; both

social and stakeholder obligation lead to managerial forms of CSR and are contrasted or

critically examined by normative approaches. The following chapter will elaborate on

the concept of employee or corporate volunteering that is serving as a catalyst involving

employees into CSR (Aguilera et al. 2007: 856).


7/25

7

Corporate Volunteering

Definition

Against the background of corporate social responsibility or corporate social action,

new forms of cross-sector collaborations between the corporate and the nonprofit

world arise. These can be classified into philanthropic as an outcome of charitable

giving, strategic collaborations including sponsoring, commercial such as cause-related

marketing and political, taking part dominantly on the international level (Galaskiewicz

and Sinclair Colman 2006; Wymer and Samu 2003). Out of this bunch of collaborating

initiatives, those relevant for the community can be described as corporate community

involvement (Hess et al. 2002: 110; Muthuri 2007: 178).

Within corporate community involvement, the concept ofvolunteering supportedby employers has been established (Voort et al. 2009: 313). Volunteering is generally

defined as any activity in which time is given freely to benefit another person, group or

cause (Wilson 2000: 215). Comparably to CSR itself, corporate volunteering can

contribute to social change either reactively or proactively (Aguilera et al. 2007: 838).

The first occurs if the company accommodates its volunteering employees, the latter if it

encourages them to participate in volunteering activities (Basil et al. 2009: 391). In both

cases, the character of the employees activities must not be changed by the employer

towards a volunteering imperative but has to remain voluntary.

Several propositions have been made to describe this phenomenon: employer-

supported volunteering (McBain and Machin 2008: 7), corporate volunteer programs

(Peterson 2004a: 615), company support for employee volunteerism (Basil et al.

2009: 387), employee volunteering, corporate volunteerism or employee

community involvement (Muthuri et al. 2009: 75), employee volunteer efforts

(Marquis et al. 2007: 926). This article will apply the term corporate volunteering that is

both simple and dominantly used not only (Wood 2007), but especially in a German-

speaking context (e.g., Schubert et al. 2002).

Relevance and Forms

First examples of corporate volunteering can be traced back to the early 1900s in

the U.S., followed by an expansion up to a third of U.S.-American companies (Basil et

al. 2009: 388). Although it has to be admitted that organized volunteering is a

relatively small part of the total picture (Putnam 2008: 46), it clearly contributes to

society and social capital. Within the U.K., corporate volunteering is continuously


8/25

8

gaining in importance (Muthuri et al. 2009: 75). Nowadays, 36 percent of employees

have the opportunity to participate in a corporate volunteering initiative (McBain and

Machin 2008: 2).

As it has been noticed for CSR, corporate volunteering as an explicit strategy has

been disseminating into continental Europe with a certain time lag (Doh and Guay

2006: 57). In Germany, the first decade of the 21st

century can be identified as the birth

of corporate volunteering, especially promoted by larger and multinational companies

(Herzig 2004: 4).

Due to the fact that corporate volunteering stems from the managerial perspective

on CSR without being anchored in a distinct theory, several forms (Peloza and Hassay

2006: 360) or schemes (Muthuri et al. 2009: 79) have emerged. Generally, three forms

of corporate volunteering can be distinguished: extra-organizational, inter-organizational and intra-organizational volunteerism (Peloza and Hassay 2006: 359-

360). In the first case, the employer is not involved if the employee performs volunteer

work outside of ones role as an employee. Inter-organizational volunteerism describes

volunteer initiatives whereas the employee chooses the nonprofit organization and is

supported (non-strategically) by the firm. In the latter form, companies proactively

develop strategic volunteer opportunities and often also support the nonprofit

organization by donations (Peloza and Hassay 2006: 360). Within these broader forms,

Muthuri et al. (2009: 82) suggest to differentiate schemes according to the rate of

recurrence, the mode of interaction between actors and the number of volunteer

participants leading to the following: team challenges, team assignments, mentoring, e-

mentoring, individual role volunteering. Examples for team challenges are clean-up

event for a single day whereas team assignments consist of more long-term forms;

mentoring provides face-to-face relationships between volunteer mentors and pupils, for

instance; individual role volunteering occurs if employees serve on school boards or as

trustees (Muthuri et al. 2009: 82).

Benefits of Structured Corporate Volunteering Programs

As a first step to assess the benefits of corporate volunteering, the volunteers

perspective has to be taken into account. The expected benefits for the employee are

motivating factors to participate in corporate volunteering. The motivation of and

benefits for employees can be derived from the research on volunteering in general,

stating that several determinants of motivation exist (e.g., Dolnicar and Randle 2007;

Hustinx et al. 2010: 74). Whereas intrinsic motivation delivers satisfaction from the


9/25

9

volunteer activity itself, extrinsic motivation can be distinguished into instrumental

motivations, psychological factors, human capital and social capital (Leete 2006: 171-

172). The participating employees gain individual competences (human capital), self-

confidence and establish relationships (social capital) to colleagues and other

participants within the program (Brown and Ashcraft 2007; Peloza et al. 2009: 381).

Additionally to these employee-related benefits, corporate volunteering is

beneficial for both the company and the community. The company benefits from

benevolent publicity, higher employee loyalty, teamwork skills etc. (Haski-Leventhal et

al. 2009: 148; Hess et al. 2002: 112). The community or nonprofit organizations benefit

from the employees time and talent (Brown and Ashcraft 2007; Peloza et al. 2009:

381).

Corporate Volunteering and Social Movements

Theoretical Analysis

This chapter will firstly assess how corporate volunteering can be framed by

resource dependence theory and social capital and secondly elaborate on similarities

between corporate volunteering and social movements.

The benefits of structured corporate volunteering highlight the resource mobilizing

effect that employees are able to generate for their company.1

As corporate volunteering

establishes a triangular relationship between the company, its volunteering employees

and the community, it is possible to contribute to a firms social capital in various ways

(Bart et al. 2009: 123; Muthuri et al. 2009: 80). As companies strive to mobilize

resources and to establish networks, the involvement in corporate volunteering can be

interpreted as a strategy to produce social capital in terms of strong and weak ties

between external and internal participators (Adler and Kwon 2002; Lin 2008: 51;

Muthuri et al. 2009: 83). Corporate social capital is defined as the set of resources,

tangible or virtual, that accrue to a corporate player through the players social

relationships, facilitating the attainment of goals (Gabbay and Leenders 1999: 3).

Furthermore, internal ties are important for both the employee and the company. The

network ties of an employee established with colleagues during the participation in

corporate volunteering constitute a valuable source for information benefits: who you

know affects what you know (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998: 251). This effect of

1 This article will not elaborate on resource dependencies regarding the partnering nonprofit organization,although resource dependence theory has extensively been applied to nonprofit organizations (Abzug1999) and their striving for access to funding, legitimacy and volunteers (e.g., Froelich 1999; Hodge andPiccolo 2005; Macedo and Pinho 2006).


10/25

10

individual social capital is valuable for the company as well, as it may enhance

information and communication across hierarchical levels and business units. As a

result, social capital plays a crucial role as it is both a determinant and an effect of

corporate volunteering (Haski-Leventhal et al. 2009: 139-140; Wilson 2000: 223).

Furthermore, more and more companies perceive corporate volunteering as a

strategic tool to contribute to social change. This adds an important aspect to the

interpretation of corporate volunteering as a social strategy search process (Bowen

2007: 104-105) by resource dependence theory and leads to the question if proactive

forms of corporate volunteering could be perceived as social movements (Voort et al.

2009).

Social movements are characterized as a purposive and collective attempt of a

number of people to change individuals or societal institutions and structures (Zald andAsh Garner 1987: 123) or as organized collective endeavors to solve social problems

Rao et al. 2000: 244). Mobilizing resourcespeople (including volunteers), money and

legitimacyis a key issue within the analysis of social movements (McAdam and Scott

2005: 61; McCarthy and Wolfson 1996: 1071). Here again, the access to and creation of

social capital is of crucial importance (Klandermans and Oegema 1987: 520).

To assess the similarities to social movements, this chapter will rely on the

qualitative case study on the corporate volunteering program within a Dutch financial

conglomerate with approximately 11,000 employees (Voort et al. 2009). In the first

place, most corporate volunteering programs are communicated today as an integral part

of a companys CSR strategy. In fact, several of them emerged as an employee initiative

(e.g., Sonneck 2008; Voort et al. 2009). For instance, if employees remark corporate

volunteering initiatives in other companies, they may push their employer to get

involved. In the Dutch case, core activists used their workplace within the company for

mobilization purposes. At the beginning of the movement, high ambitions could be

revealed (Voort et al. 2009). The fact that corporate volunteering starts in many cases as

a grassroots initiative that is continuously mobilizing resources is clearly comparable to

social movements.

In the second place, desired beneficial effects of corporate volunteering did not

materialize in the Dutch case study. To improve mobilization of other employees,

activities have been centralized and framed as a strategic CSR instrument instead of a

grassroots approach (Voort et al. 2009: 319). This framing caused different perceptions

of the movements value among employees without being able to enhance

organizational identification of some business units (Voort et al. 2009: 320).


11/25

11

Finally, de-mobilizing effects took place when employees perceived an obligation

to participate leading to a hidden countermovement (Voort et al. 2009: 321). As other

empirical studies revealed, there is a fine line between actively encouraging

involvement in employee volunteering and making it compulsory (Institute for

Volunteering Research 2004: 3; see also Haski-Leventhal et al. 2009). Structured

corporate volunteering programs face the challenge to balance being part of a proactive

corporate volunteering strategy and possibly harming the voluntary nature.

Consequently, the analysis of this paper follows the claim to be conscious of the social

movement origins (Voort et al. 2009: 322) of corporate volunteering.

The Case of ABB and Special Olympics

Several corporations serve as best practice examples for corporate volunteering

programs, e.g., Pfizer (Vian et al. 2007) or Ford (Bart et al. 2009). For this analysis, a

company with a large number of employees in Germany and a corporate volunteering

program regarded as best practice in the field of work with the handicapped (Sonneck

2008: 387) has been chosen.

ABB Group, a Swiss-Swedish multinational corporation headquartered in Zurich,

Switzerland, mainly operates in the areas of power and automobile technology. As a

leader in manufacturing of products improving performance while lowering

environmental impact, ABB is active in more than 100 countries, having offices in 87 of

them (ABB 2010a). In total, 117,000 people are employed in this multinational

enterprise (ABB 2010a), whereas 10,600 of them work in Germany (ABB 2010b). Its

first quarter worldwide net income was 464 billion US dollar in 2010, which

corresponds to a 29 percentage decrease over previous years quarter(Ligi 2010).

ABB commits itself to high ethical and moral standards. Therefore, a code of

conduct valid for every level of the organization, as well as in any country of operation

has been developed. One particular feature of this code is the definition of the relation

of ABB with its community partners. Considering itself an actor within civil society,

ABB Group is involved in exercising citizenship through specific projects, charitable

donations, and practical support of worthy initiatives (ABB 2010c: 25).

In Germany, one of the special projects that is supported by ABB is the national

Special Olympics (ABB 2010d). Founded 1968 by Eunice Kennedy Shriver, sister of

the former president of the United States of America John F. Kennedy, Special

Olympics constitutes the largest social movement of sports for individuals with

intellectual disabilities worldwide (Special Olympics Deutschland e.V. 2010a). In 1988,


12/25

12

they got officially recognized by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) (Special

Olympics 2010). Only four years later, the association German Special Olympics e. V.

was created by the most important national sports organizations in Germany to support

intellectually disabled people in their sportive activities there. In 1998, the first German

Special Olympics were held (Special Olympics Deutschland e.V. 2010b). Since then,

national summer and winter games have been organized biennially by turns. Nowadays,

3.1 billion people are part of this social movement around the globe, whereupon 38,000

individuals belong to the German Special Olympics association (Special Olympics

Deutschland e.V. 2010a).

ABB regards Special Olympics a valuable opportunity to increase the acceptance of

people with intellectual disabilities and their families in society (ABB 2010d). Having

been the main sponsor of this association and its events for ten years now, ABBemployees of all ranks, and from all over the world have assisted this movement not

only financially. In fact, during this time period more than 1,700 of its staff members

have contributed to the success of the national Special Olympics games and the work of

the German umbrella organization through various voluntary fundraising or training

activities. Whilst the volunteers take holidays and sacrifice their leisure time for this

purpose, ABB covers travelling and accommodation expenses (ABB 2010d; Amaral

and Magalhes 2004). Interestingly, ABB will continue its commitment to Special

Olympics even though it is currently suffering from a loss in net income.

Methodological Approach

Network Analysis

To answer the second research question, dealing with the potential contribution of

corporate volunteering to an organizations social capital, a network analysis is

undertaken. Network analysis is highly interrelated with the concept of social capital as

it puts emphasis on constraints placed by social structure on individual action and the

differential opportunities known variously as social resources, social capital, or social

support to which actors have access (Marsden 1990: 436). The method is able to

analyze systemsof dyadic interactions (Rowley 1997: 894) between companies and a

multitude of stakeholders.

Network analyses can either focus on a whole-network (bounded social collectives)

or on egocentric networks (the relationships, the alters, in the locality of a focal actor,

the ego) (Marsden 2005: 8). The structure of whole-network can be described by

density measuring the relative number of ties in the network. Density as an indicator for


13/25

13

the mean strength of connections is calculated as a ratio of the number of relationships

existing in the network and the total number of possible ties (Marsden 1990: 453-454;

Rowley 1997: 896). In contrast to density, centralityrefers to an individuals position

in the network and is used as a measure of network-generated prominence or power

(Marsden 1990: 454; Rowley 1997: 898). Centrality can be classified into degree,

closeness and betweenness of the actors (Rowley 1997: 898). The role oftie strength is

ambiguous. Whereas weak ties provide individuals with information beyond those

stemming from their own social circle, strong ties are more easily available and have

greater motivation to be of assistance (Granovetter 1983: 209). Closeness or intensity,

frequency and duration may serve as indicators for tie strength (Marsden 1990: 455).

The network structure of corporate volunteering is dependent on the scheme; the

expected outcomes for the scheme team challenge consist of cohesion amongemployees within and across departments, weak ties with several numerous actors

leading to thin but extensive networks (Muthuri et al. 2009: 82). The participation of

ABB employees in Special Olympics National Games can be classified into the

corporate volunteering scheme of team assignment with a strong team focus.

Consequently, stronger ties and thick trust within the volunteer group and between

volunteers and the community are expected (Muthuri et al. 2009: 82-83).

Research Design and Measurement

As volunteers stem from all hierarchies within the company, it was necessary to get

access to both employees working with constant internet access and to industrial

workers without daily access to email and internet. As a result, a multimode strategy

(Schaefer and Dillman 1998: 383) was chosen for the survey: a web-based questionnaire

accessed by email-distributed codes and a self-administered questionnaire delivered and

received by postal mail.

Considering measurement, the difficult attempts to measure social capital can be

classified into structural aspects in terms of networks and cultural aspects such as trust,

norms and values (Deth 2008: 160). Among the structural approaches, surveys aim at

capturing membership in voluntary associations or volunteerism as an indicator for

participation in the local community (Deth 2008: 160; Onyx and Bullen 2000: 40). The

fact that individuals volunteer is perceived as being crucial for a minimum level of

civic virtue (Deth 2008: 155) and thus an indicator for social capital; a decline in

volunteering rates is interpreted as a loss of social capital, vice versa (Putnam 2000). To

answer the second research question, the mere fact that corporate volunteering exists is


14/25

14

obviously not convincing. Instead, the contribution to social capital had to be measured

in a combination of measurement instruments. As a result, the questionnaire consisted

of two parts. The first part consists of network-related questions and the second contains

various items measuring latent constructs.

The measurement of social capital from the network perspective involves both the

access to and mobilization of social capital (Lin 2008: 52-54). Traditionally, the name-

generating methodology (list all the people you know; Marsden 1990: 439) has been

used for the purpose of constructing egocentric networks. But, this method is considered

unsatisfactory; for instance, it is not able to reconstruct a complete network due to the

fact that the content universe is usually unknown (Lin 2008: 54; Van Der Gaag and

Snijders 2005: 3). In the case of a structured corporate volunteering program, the

measurement of social capital can focus on that social capital the participants get accessto via volunteering. Consequently, the survey included a name generator listing all

participants of the company in the period 2008/2009 (including the 2008 National

Summer Games in Karlsruhe, and 2009 National Winter Games in Inzell). The first

question2

aims at measuring the access to social capital as the relationships established

during the corporate volunteering event. It serves as a filter question for the following

questions as well and thus reduces the complexity of the name generator for participants

of the online-based survey; in the written questionnaire, the question was concretized by

adding the following sentence: Please answer the following question only for those

persons you got to know during the Special Olympics National Games 2008/2009. All

network questions were free choice, i.e., they did not request a certain number ofalters.

The second question3

intends to capture the retrospective use or mobilization of

social capital reflecting the use of social ties and their resources (Lin 2008: 52-53; Van

Der Gaag and Snijders 2005: 2). The analysis aims at investigating both the formal

structure of the network established via corporate volunteering and the tie content itself

(Adler and Kwon 2002: 23). Since social capital is convertible to other kinds of capital,

friendship ties can be used for information gathering and vice versa (Adler and Kwon

2002: 21).

2Below, you will find the volunteers at the Special Olympics National Games 2008/2009 assorted by

their work places. Whom did you get to know during the Special Olympics National Games?3 How often do you contact the following persons, e.g., via telephone, e-mail, in person or online?

(Possible answers are: No contact at all, monthly contact, once a week, several times a week, dailycontact.)


15/25

15

To capture this effect, the third4

and fourth5

questions investigate the amount of

business-related contents versus the quantity of personal issues. It has to be taken into

account that all these questions capture only new contacts. Thus, the production of

(new) social capital is assessed, not the amount of social capital existing within the

company in terms of friendship or collegial ties.

The second part of the questionnaire covers a wide range of latent constructs that

are relevant for an evaluation of the social capital generated through corporate

volunteering: e.g., personal satisfaction with corporate volunteering, trust, collaboration,

fun, recognition by others and organizational commitment. The items were derived from

qualitative studies on corporate volunteering (Peloza and Hassay 2006) or were based

on existing scales. Reliability and validity were assessed by applying extensive scale

development procedures and pretests.

Sample

The firm locations Mannheim, Heidelberg, Ldenscheid Bad Berleburg Aue, as

well as in Sasbach, Bad Honnef and Minden were included into our analysis. The

sample consists of 53 employees of ABB Germany (response rate: 68%). But due to the

name-generating method assuming symmetric relations, a full sample of all 78

participants could be obtained. Among these employees, there were 9 industrial

workers, 36 employees, 1 trainee, 3 members of the middle management, 3 executive

managers and 1 executive/supervisory board member. The number of times these

individuals participated in the Special Olympics National Games as a volunteer ranges

from 1 to 10. As the median value, 3 participations could be denoted. 75.5% of the

sample supported this event more than once. 39.6% attended the national Special

Olympics for the first time during 2008/2009.

Empirical data analysis was undertaken using SPSS 18, UCINET 6 and NetDraw

(Borgatti 2002a; Borgatti 2002b).

4How important are business-related issues when you contact the following persons? Business-relatedcomprises the exchange of information concerning work processes or projects in the form of feedbacks,meetings, inquiries, for instance. (Possible answers are: not important at all, not important, partly, a role,a dominating role.)5How important are private issues when you contact the following persons? Private issues are those you

are also subject of your conversations with friends. (Possible answers are: not important at all, notimportant, partly, a role, a dominating role.)


16/25


17/25


18/25

18

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

A8

A9

A11

A12

A13

A14

A15

A16

A17

A20

A22

A24

B1

B3

B4

B5

B7

B9

B10

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C8

C10

C11C12

D2

D3

D5

D7

D11E4

E6

F3

F6

Figure 3: Active relations within and across hierarchical levels

Source: own elaboration

Figure 3 reveals the strength (frequency) of ties across hierarchical levels

(industrial workers, employees, trainee, members of the middle management, executive

managers, executive/supervisory board member). The scheme of corporate volunteering

in ABB is able to establish maintaining ties across hierarchical levels, especially among

members of the hierarchical level employees and between them and industrial

workers. At the same time, only one of the two executive managers keeps up contact

with several employees.

With respect to the content of new social ties, business-related versus private issues

were differentiated. Figure 4 depicts private contacts as blue lines, business-related ties

as green lines. If an actor maintains both private and business-related ties to another

actor, this relationship is classified as multiplex (Hanneman and Riddle 2005). This

combination is marked in red.

It can be revealed that 24.04% of the contacts are most dominantly business-related

whereas 31.73% are of private nature and 21.15% are multiplex ties. This result reflects

the multidimensionality of social capital. The use of new contacts for personal purposes

is able to be both a motivating factor and a benefit of corporate volunteering.


19/25


20/25

20

Further research could compare the network of ABB and Special Olympics with

other schemes of corporate volunteering. A comparison could reveal if and how

different corporate volunteering schemes affect the production of social capital.

Additionally, the relationship between social capital and intellectual capital (Coleman

1988; Portes 1998) could be investigated. Business-related, personal and multiplex ties

could contribute to the acquisition of competences, workplace efficiency and several

other constructs differently. Thus, corporate social capital could enhance the companys

knowledge and knowing capability (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998: 250-251; Surroca et

al. 2010: 468). A possible advancement of corporate volunteering in the sense of a

human resources development tool could be discussed afterwards.

References:

ABB 2010a 'Our Business'.

http://www.abb.com/cawp/abbzh252/a92797a76354298bc1256aea00487bdb.asp

x Retrieved 18.05.2010.

ABB 2010b 'Kennzahlen der ABB in Deutschland'.

http://www.abb.de/cawp/deabb201/e4ae8ddb0277b099c12571540048f63c.aspx

Retrieved 10.05.2010.

ABB 2010c 'Code of Conduct'.

http://search.abb.com/library/Download.aspx?DocumentID=7ABA101167&Lan

guageCode=en&DocumentPartID=&Action=Launch&IncludeExternalPublicLimited=True Retrieved 01.04.2010.

ABB 2010d 'ABB: Premium Partner von Special Olympics Deutschland'.

http://www.abb.com/cawp/deabb201/35cea3e5daccc006c1257193003d9894.asp

x Retrieved 11.05.2010.

Abzug, Rikki 1999 'Nonprofits in Organizational Sociology's Research Traditions: An

Empirical Study'. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28/3: 330-338.

Adler, Paul S., and Seok-Woo Kwon 2002 'Social Capital: Prospects for a New

Concept'. The Academy of Management Review 27/1: 17-40.Aguilera, Ruth V., Deborah E. Rupp, Cynthia A. Williams, and Jyoti Ganapathi 2007

'Putting the S back in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Multilevel Theory of

Social Change in Organizations'. The Academy of Management Review 32/3:

836-863.

Amaral, A., and A. Magalhes 2004 'Epidemiology and the Bologna Saga'. Higher

Education 48/1: 79-100.

Bart, Chris, Mark C. Baetz, and S. Mark Pancer 2009 'Leveraging Human Capital

Through an Employee Volunteer Program: The Case of Ford Motor Company of

Canada'. Journal of Intellectual Capital 10/1: 121-134.

Basil, Debra Z., Mary S. Runt, M. Easwaramoorthy, and Cathy Barr 2009 'Company

Support for Employee Volunteering: A National Survey of Companies in

Canada'. Journal of Business Ethics 85/387398.

Basu, Kunal, and Guido Palazzo 2008 'Corporate Social Responsibility: A ProcessModel of Sensemaking'. The Academy of Management Review 33/1: 122-136.


21/25

21

Booth, Jonathan E., Kyoung Won Park, and Theresa M. Glomb 2009 'Employer-

Supported Volunteering Benefits: Gift Exchange Among Employers,

Employees, and Volunteer Organizations'. Human Resource Management 48/2:

227-249.

Borgatti, Stephen P. 2002a UCINET For Windows: Software For Social Network

Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytical Technologies.

Borgatti, Stephen P. 2002b NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software. Harvard, MA:Analytical Technologies.

Bourdieu, Pierre 1985 'The Forms of Capital' in Handbook of Theory and Research For

the Sociology of Education. Richardson, J G (ed.), 241-258. New York:

Greenwood.

Bowen, Frances 2007 'Corporate Social Strategy: Competing Views from Two Theories

of the Firm'. Journal of Business Ethics 75/1: 97-113.

Bowen, Howard R. 1953 Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. New York:

Harper & Brothers.

Brown, William A., and Robert F. Ashcraft 2007 'Corporate Employee Volunteer

Programs: Considering the Interests of Multiple Stakeholders'. The International

Journal of Volunteer Administration 24/3: 84-89.Campbell, John L. 2005 'Where Do We Stand?' in Social Movements and Organization

Theory. Davis, Gerald Fredrick, Doug McAdam, W. Richard Scott, and Mayer

N. Zald (eds.), 41-68. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Carroll, Archie B. 1979 'A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate

Performance'. The Academy of Management Review 4/4: 497-505.

Carroll, Archie B. 1991 'The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the

Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders'. Business Horizons 34/4:

39-48.

Carroll, Archie B., and Ann K. Buchholtz 2003 Business & Society: Ethics and

Stakeholder Management 5. Cincinnati: Thomson South-Western College.

Clarkson, Max B. E. 1995 'A Stakeholder Framework For Analyzing and EvaluatingCorporate Social Performance'. The Academy of Management Review 20/1: 92-

117.

Coleman, James S. 1988 'Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital'. The

American Journal of Sociology 94/Supplement: S95-S120.

Den Hond, Frank, and Frank G. A. de Bakker 2007 'Ideologically Motivated Activism:

How Activist Groups Influence Corporate Social Change Activities'. Academy

of Management Review 32/3: 901-924.

Den Hond, Frank, Frank G. A. de Bakker, and Peter Neergaard 2007 'Introduction to

Managing Corporate Social Responsibility in Action: Talking, Doing and

Measuring' in Managing Corporate Social Responsibility in Action: Talking,

Doing and Measuring. Hond, Frank den, Frank G. A. de Bakker, and Peter

Neergaard (eds.), 1-14. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Deth, Jan W. van 2008 'Measuring Social Capital' in The Handbook of Social Capital.

Castiglione, Dario, Jan W. van Deth, and Guglielmo Wolleb (eds.), 150-176.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Di Domenico, Maria Laura, Paul Tracey, and Helen Haugh 2009 'The Dialectic of

Social Exchange: Theorizing Corporate-Social Enterprise Collaboration'.

Organization Studies 30/8: 887-907.

Dodd, E. Merrick 1932 'For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees?'. Harvard Law

Review 45/7: 1145-1163.

Doh, Jonathan P. 2008 'Between Confrontation and Cooperation: Corporate Citizenshipand NGOs' in Handbook of Research on Global Corporate Citizenship. Scherer,


22/25

22

Andreas G., and Guido Palazzo (eds.), 273-292. Cheltenham; Northampton,

MA: Edward Elgar.

Doh, Jonathan P., and Terrence R. Guay 2006 'Corporate Social Responsibility, Public

Policy, and NGO Activism in Europe and the United States: An Institutional-

Stakeholder Perspective'. Journal of Management Studies 43/1: 47-73.

Dolnicar, Sara, and Melanie Randle 2007 'What Motivates Which Volunteers?

Psychographic Heterogeneity Among Volunteers in Australia'. Voluntas:International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 18/June: 135-

155(21).

Donaldson, Thomas, and Lee E. Preston 1995 'The Stakeholder Theory of the

Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications'. The Academy of

Management Review 20/1: 65-91.

Fassin, Yves 2009 'The Stakeholder Model Refined'. Journal of Business Ethics 84/1:

113-135.

Froelich, Karen A. 1999 'Diversification of Revenue Strategies: Evolving Resource

Dependence in Nonprofit Organizations'. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly 28/3: 246-268.

Gabbay, Shaul, and Roger Th. A. J. Leenders 1999 'The Structure of Advantage andDisadvantage' in Corporate Social Capital and Liability. Leenders, Roger Th. A.

J., and Shaul M. Gabbay (eds.), 1-16.

Galaskiewicz, Joseph, and Michelle Sinclair Colman 2006 'Collaboration Between

Corporations and Nonprofit Organizations' in The Nonprofit Sector: A Research

Handbook. Powell, Walter W., and Richard Steinberg (eds.), 180-204. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Gilder, Dick de, Theo N M Schuyt, and Melissa Breedijk 2005 'Effects of an Employee

Volunteering Program On the Work Force: The ABM-AMRO Case'. Journal of

Business Ethics 61/143-152.

Granovetter, Mark 1983 'The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited'.

Sociological Theory 1/201-233.Hanneman, Robert A, and Mark Riddle 2005 Introduction to Social Network Methods.

(published online), Riverside, CA: http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/.

Haski-Leventhal, Debbie, Lucas C. P. M. Meijs, and Lesley Hustinx 2009 'The Third-

Party Model: Enhancing Volunteering Through Governments, Corporations and

Educational Institutes'. Journal of Social Policy 39/1: 139-158.

Herzig, Christian 2004 'Corporate Volunteering in Germany: Survey and Empirical

Evidence'. Universitt Lneburg, Lneburg.

Hess, David, Nikolai Rogovsky, and Thomas W. Dunfee 2002 'The Next Wave of

Corporate Community Involvement: Corporate Social Initiatives'. California

Management Review 44/2: 110-125.

Hillman, Amy J., Michael C. Withers, and Brian J. Collins 2009 'Resource Dependence

Theory: A Review'. Journal of Management 35/6: 1404-1427.

Hodge, Matthew M., and Ronald F. Piccolo 2005 'Funding Source, Board Involvement

Techniques, and Financial Vulnerability in Nonprofit Organizations'. Nonprofit

Management and Leadership 16/2: 171-190.

Houghton, Susan M, Joan T A Gabel, and David W. Williams 2009 'The Two Faces of

CSR: Does Employee Volunteerism Improve Compliance?'. Journal of Business

Ethics 87: 477-494.

Hustinx, Lesley, Femida Handy, and Ram A. Cnaan 2010 'Volunteering' in Third Sector

Research. Taylor, Rupert (eds.), 73-89. New York: Springer.

Institute for Volunteering Research 2004 'Community Investment: The Impacts ofEmployee Volunteering at Barclays Bank'. Institute for Volunteering Research,

London.


23/25

23

Jones, Thomas M. 1995 'Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and

Economics'. The Academy of Management Review 20/2: 404-437.

Kassinis, George, and Nikos Vafeas 2006 'Stakeholder Pressures and Environmental

Performance'. Academy of Management Journal 49/1: 145-159.

Klandermans, Bert, and Dirk Oegema 1987 'Potentials, Networks, Motivations, and

Barriers: Steps Towards Participation in Social Movements'. American

Sociological Review 52/4 : 519-531.Lee, Min-Dong Paul 2008 'A Review of the Theories of Corporate Social

Responsibility: Its Evolutionary Path and the Road Ahead'. International Journal

of Management Reviews 10/1: 53-73.

Leete, Laura 2006 'Work in the Nonprofit Sector' in The Nonprofit Sector: A Research

Handbook. Powell, Walter W., and Richard Steinberg (eds.), 159-179. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ligi, Antonio 2010 'ABB Profit Misses Estimates as Prices Under Pressure'. Bloomberg

Businessweek 22.04.2010: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-

22/abb-prof.

Lin, N. 2008 'Building a Network Theory of Social Capital' in The Handbook of Social

Capital. Castiglione, Dario, Jan W. van Deth, and Guglielmo Wolleb (eds.), 3-29. New York: Oxford University Press.

Macedo, I. M., and J. C. Pinho 2006 'The Relationship Between Resource Dependence

and Market Orientation'. European Journal of Marketing 40/5/6: 533-553.

Maignan, Isabelle, and O. C. Ferrell 2004 'Corporate Social Responsibility and

Marketing: An Integrative Framework'. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science 32/1: 3-19.

Marquis, Christopher, Mary Ann Glynn, and Gerald F. Davis 2007 'Community

Isomorphism and Corporate Social Action'. Academy of Management Review

32/3: 925-945.

Marsden, Peter V. 1990 'Network Data and Measurement'. Annual Review of Sociology

16: 435-463.Marsden, Peter V. 2005 'Recent Developments in Network Measurement' in Models and

Methods in Social Network Analysis. Carrington, P. J., J. Scott, and S.

Wasserman (eds.), 8-30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McAdam, Doug, and W. Richard Scott 2005 'Organizations and Movements' in Social

Movements and Organization Theory. Davis, Gerald Fredrick, Doug McAdam,

W. Richard Scott, and Mayer N. Zald (eds.), 4-40. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

McBain, Cathy, and Joanna Machin 2008 'Caring Companies: Engagement in

Employer-Supported Volunteering'. Institute for Volunteering Research,

London.

McCarthy, John D., and Mark Wolfson 1996 'Resource Mobilization by Local Social

Movement Organizations: Agency, Strategy, and Organization in the Movement

Against Drinking and Driving'. American Sociological Review 61/6: 1070-1088.

Muthuri, Judy N. 2007 'Participation and Accountability in Corporate Community

Involvement Programmes: A Research Agenda'. Community Development

Journal 43/2: 177-193.

Muthuri, Judy N., Dirk Matten, and Jeremy Moon 2009 'Employee Volunteering and

Social Capital: Contributions to Corporate Social Responsibility'. British Journal

of Management 20/1: 75-89.

Nahapiet, Janine, and Sumantra Ghoshal 1998 'Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and

the Organizational Advantage'. Academy of Management Review 23/2: 242-266.


24/25

24

Onyx, Jenny, and Paul Bullen 2000 'Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities'.

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36/1: 23-42.

Orlitzky, Marc, Frank L. Schmidt, and Sara L. Rynes 2003 'Corporate Social and

Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis'. Organization Studies 24/3: 403-441.

Peloza, John, and Derek N. Hassay 2006 'Intra-Organizational Volunteerism: Good

Soldiers, Good Deeds and Good Politics'. Journal of Business Ethics 64/4: 357-

379.Peloza, John, Simon Hudson, and Derek Hassay 2009 'The Marketing of Employee

Volunteerism'. Journal of Business Ethics 85/Supplement 2: 371-386.

Peterson, Dane K. 2004a 'Benefits of Participation in Corporate Volunteer Programs:

Employees' Perceptions'. Personnel Review 33/6: 615-627.

Peterson, Dane K. 2004b 'Recruitment Strategies for Encouraging Participation in

Corporate Volunteer Programs'. Journal of Business Ethics 49/4: 371-386.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey 1987 'A Resource Dependence Perspective on Intercorporate Relations'

in Intercorporate Relations: The Structural Analysis of Business. Mizruchi,

M.S., and M. Schwartz (eds.), 25-55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald R. Salancik 1978 The External Control of Organizations: A

Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper Row.Pfeffer, Jeffrey, and Gerald R. Salancik 2003 The External Control of Organizations: A

Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Portes, Alejandro 1998 'Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern

Sociology'. Annual Review of Sociology 24/1: 1-24.

Putnam, Robert D. 2000 Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American

Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Putnam, Robert 2008 'Way Beyond Volunteerism: Helping Society is About More Than

Building Houses'. The Conference Board Review March/April: 46-47.

Rao, Hayagreeva, Calvin Morrill, and Mayer N. Zald 2000 'Power Plays: How Social

Movements and Collective Action Create New Organizational Forms'. Research

in Organizational Behavior 22: 237-281.Rowley, Timothy J. 1997 'Moving Beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of

Stakeholder Influences'. Academy of Management Review 22/4: 887-910.

Schaefer, David R., and Don A. Dillman 1998 'Development of a Standard E-Mail

Methodology: Results of an Experiment'. Public Opinion Quarterly 62/3: 378-

397.

Schubert, Renate, Sabina Littmann-Wernli, and Philipp Tingler 2002 Corporate

Volunteering. Bern: Haupt.

Sonneck, Stephanie 2008 'Behindertenhilfe' in Handbuch Corporate Citizenship:

Corporate Social Responsibilty fr Manager. Habisch, Andr, Ren

Schmidpeter, and Martin Neureiter (eds.), 387-391. Berlin, Heidelberg:

Springer.

Special Olympics 2010 'The History of Special Olympics'.

http://www.specialolympics.org/content.aspx?id=6368&terms=history Retrieved

15.05.2010.

Special Olympics Deutschland e.V. 2010a 'Die Idee'.

http://www.specialolympics.de/special_olympics.html Retrieved 15.05.2010.

Special Olympics Deutschland e.V. 2010b 'Meilensteine'.

http://www.specialolympics.de/meilensteine.html Retrieved 15.05.2010.

Surroca, Jordi, Josep A. Trib, and Sandra Waddock 2010 'Corporate Responsibility

and Financial Performance: The Role of Intangible Resources'. Strategic

Management Journal 31/5: 463-490.


25/25

Swanson, Diane L. 1995 'Addressing a Theoretical Problem by Reorienting the

Corporate Social Performance Model'. The Academy of Management Review

20/1: 43-64.

Van Der Gaag, Martin, and Tom A. B. Snijders 2005 'The Resource Generator: Social

Capital Quantification With Concrete Items'. Social Networks 27/1: 1-29.

Van Liedekerke, Luc, and Wim Dubbink 2008 'Twenty Years of European Business

Ethics-Past Developments and Future Concerns'. Journal of Business Ethics82/2: 273-280.

Vian, Taryn, Kelly McCoy, Sarah C. Richards, Patrick Connelly, and Frank Feeley

2007 'Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Health: The Pfizer Global

Health Fellows International Volunteering Program'. Human Resource Planning

30/1: 30-35.

Voort, Judith van der, Katherina Glac, and Lucas Meijs 2009 '''Managing'' Corporate

Community Involvement'. Journal of Business Ethics 90/3: 311-329.

Wartick, Steven L., and Philip L. Cochran 1985 'The Evolution of the Corporate Social

Performance Model'. The Academy of Management Review 10/4: 758-769.

Wilson, John 2000 'Volunteering'. Annual Review of Sociology 26/1: 215-240.

Wood, Donna J. 1991 'Corporate Social Performance Revisited'. The Academy ofManagement Review 16/4: 691-718.

Wood, Donna J., and Ramond E. Jones 1995 'Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical

Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Performance'. International

Journal of Organizational Analysis 3/3: 229-267.

Wood, Elliot 2007 ''What About Me?' The Importance of Understanding the Perspective

of Non-Managerial Employees in Research on Corporate Citizenship' in

Managing Corporate Social Responsibility in Action: Talking, Doing and

Measuring. Hond, Frank den, Frank G. A. de Bakker, and Peter Neergaard

(eds.), 111-126. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Woolcock, Michael 1998 'Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a

Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework'. Theory and Society 27/2: 151-208.

Wymer, Walter W., and Sridhar Samu 2003 Nonprofit and Business Sector

Collaboration: Social Enterprises, Cause-Related Marketing, Sponsorship, and

Other Corporate-Nonprofit Dealings. Binghamton, NY: Best Business Books.

Zald, Mayer N., and Roberta Ash Garner 1987 'Social Movement Organizations:

Growth, Decay, and Change' in Social Movements in an Organizational Society.

Zald, Meyer N., and John D. McCarthy (eds.), 121-142. New Brunswick, New

Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	alberto-guajardo-meneses
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Caso de Estudio Voluntariado CorporativoW-078

Documents