Art museums’ CSR; keep congruent!
Isabel Crespo - 10967672 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Thesis supervisor: Dhr. Dr. Wim Elving 15th January 2017
Abstract
The aim of this research was to find the CSR business case for museums in the Netherlands, in other words, observe to what extent social responsible measures can increase the legitimacy of their activity and the engagement with their financial partners. To that end, we interviewed seven participants from art museum’s staff members and corporate donors’ representatives to observe the current application of CSR in museums and their opinion about their potential. From the interviews, three different dimensions emerged: strengths and weaknesses, between two stools and opportunities and challenges. The most important finding is that for most of the participants seemed logical to connect with stakeholders exploring new financial partnerships through the application of CSR. Although, they need first to involve and make their employees and partners feel proud, and second, find the correct way to communicate the story of the museum social responsibility to their audience. In this way they will be congruent and reciprocate with their donors and the society as a whole.
Art museums’ CSR; keep congruent! (The case of the Netherlands)
In 2013 the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science of the Netherlands stated: “The public budgets available to our museums are under pressure; at the same time, economic crisis has led to a drop in sponsorship. As competition in the leisure market increases, museums will have to do everything possible to maintain their position in the decades ahead […] It is important that museums can respond adequately to these issues to retain and increase the value they share with society” (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), 2013).
Art museums, like many other cultural institutions, are nonprofit organizations quickly evolving in recent years due to the shortages in their funding and increased accountability in front of their stakeholders. The cutbacks are a response to the international financial crisis and the changes in the European welfare-state paradigm adopting neoliberal policies (Alexander, 2014; Cole, 2008; Lindqvist, 2012). Despite there is a tradition of subsidize the culture - the biggest and most visited museums in the country currently receive support for more than 70% of their total budget-, the Minister of OCW presented in the summer 2013 a plan to the Parliament, claiming for more cooperation between museums and the private sector to compensate the compromised institutional budget and the sponsorship decrease. In this way, art museums are an exceptional laboratory to observe the transition that many cultural institutions have to face from a comfortable public funding to an increased search for private support, in competition with other non-profit organizations.
Apart from the financial challenges, cultural institutions, are increasingly exposed to their stakeholder’s expectations and the social accountability of their acts. Inappropriate o misguided conduct can backfire strong reputations (Sohn and Lariscy, 2012). In Spain the notorious ‘’caso Palau”, where several millions of euros from corporate and individual
donations to the Palau de la Música Catalana (concert hall and Barcelona’s cultural icon) were deviated to the private use and benefit of the management, is still remembered (Catalan News Agency, 2013). We argue that the application of the standards of CSR would have brought to the cultural institution some instruments for assure a good governance, more transparency in their funding activities, resulting ultimately in a more ethical behaviour.
Cultural institutions are then, and inevitably will be, forced to be financially independent but also, in order to meet stakeholders’ expectations regarding their ethical behaviour, socially responsible. Therefore it’s interesting to know the extent to which these institutions acknowledge the business case of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Carroll,
1979; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2004; Orlitzky et al., 2003; Porter and Kramer, 2006) as possible practices to improve museums’ financial performance but also its social value to confront their accountability with its stakeholders (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2010; Merz, Peloza and Chen, 2010). In other words, and as a main question, one could expect that implementing CSR in art museums might improve their legitimacy and also the engagement and loyalty of
their corporate partners, which can finally lead to more support and funds from the private sector.
Despite enough has been written and explored about CSR in the business field, this study wants to cover the current gap in the existence literature about art museums and hence other cultural institutions. Since limited research is available, we have adopted and exploratory approach with the aim to find out what are the considerations about the applicability of CSR initiatives in art museums from two different perspectives: the art museum and the firm as donor. Then, first, we ask the following research question:
RQ1: How do managers of art museums in the Netherlands perceive social responsible initiatives or CSR policies and their possibilities?
On the other side of the spectrum for our analysis we find the firm or donor, who has already answered for themselves important issues regarding the potential of some CSR
initiatives and, among them, philanthropy. Corporate Philanthropy (CP), considered an extent or domain of CSR, “a direct contribution by a corporation to charity or cause, most often in the form of cash grants, donations and/or in-kind services” (Kotler and Lee, 2005, p.144) has become a social need and a business case, considering CP as an opportunity rather than an obligation (CECP 2008). Nevertheless, according with the last report of Giving in the Netherlands (Center for Philanthropic Studies, 2015), the real scenario in the country is not positive: corporations do not utilize philanthropy strategically and just a small group of corporations communicates about their philanthropic activities; although corporations in the country seem to be more aware of the concept of CSR, they do not appreciate an increased engagement in these initiatives.
This situation could be explained by the phenomenon named “Catch 22” (Morsing, Schultz and Nielsen, 2008) of communicating socially responsible activities: stakeholders show favorable attitude with firms that commit in social responsible activities but at the same time encourage them not to communicate, or “whisper” (Elving, 2012) this commitment, in order to avoid skepticism about the real motives of the firm. There is the assumption that supporting social causes improves corporate image, which can make the public be suspicious about the financial motivations behind the initiative. One line of research devoted to overcome this skepticism has been busy with the issue of fit between company-cause, or the degree of
congruence between the company’s core business and the cause supported perceived by the consumer or public. Part of the results indicate a preference for a high fit which is normally explained in previous research by congruence theory, important in our analysis to understand why museums should be expected to practice CSR.
All in all considering the current knowledge about the importance of CSR initiatives in the private field and the effects on reputation and business’ opportunity proved by recent research (Du, et al., 2010; Elving, 2012; Lii and Lee, 2012) we wonder how the companies observe social responsible activities by the institutions they support. We assume that corporations engaging and funding some causes, previously evaluate them with the
same economic, legal and ethical parameters under which their own activities are currently scrutinized and legitimized by their stakeholders and the society as a whole (Carroll, 1979; Donaldson and Preston, 1995). In order to know their opinion we have established a second research questions:
RQ2: How do representative of donor companies perceive social responsible initiatives or CSR policies in art museums?
The final purpose of this paper is to find out the insights for the application and potential of CSR initiatives in art museums as an example for other cultural and non-profit institutions in the European welfare context, which are also currently dealing with the government’s pressure to reduce public budgets.
We have structured the study in four parts; a literature review, a method section, results and discussion. In the literature section we briefly describe the state of the art in museum’s research, we define the main concepts like CSR or CP and we draw on Heider’s (1958) balance theory and the Mauss’s (1990) idea of ‘’obligation to reciprocate’, as possible arguments for the implementation of CSR in art museums. Afterwards, there is a method section, where the sample and design of the study will be explained, followed by the results. To end up we have a final section with a discussion and some implications for the field.
Literature review Art museums’ new approaches
To best of my knowledge’s very limited systematic research about museums’ CSR has been available. Most of the scholar’s attention regarding museums comes from the Anglo-Saxon context. In USA and UK, with a long tradition of self-financed culture and scarce governmental support, the literature and research have been devoted to the field of fundraising (focused in how to ask for money or apply for a grant, to engage with donors and keep their loyalty or to set up a collaborative and ideal board of trustees) and improve their marketing tools and metrics in
order to survive in a competitive globalized market and liberal economy (Anderson, 2004; Byrne, 2009; Caldwell, 2000; Caldwell and Coshall, 2002; Cole, 2009).
This particular mindset, in which museums seeking for funds need to be run with business-world logic and tools, have been adopted in the last years by museums in the European subsidized context for the arts. The economic crisis, that started in 2008 affected their financial wellbeing due to reductions in government allocations and income cuts from the private sector. In that way some studies (Camarero and Garrido, 2009; Cole, 2008; Linqvist, 2012; Zorloni, 2009), interested in this particular scenario, aim to find out the business case for arts museums, offering insights of how they currently function underlying their weaknesses but also
considering their social value. The innovative perspective in these studies is that they not just advocate for a more market oriented approach but rather for an strategic stakeholder
management (government, public, friends association, donors, specialized press), with a particular attention to foster partnership with the private sector, as a formula to decrease the vulnerability of museums in front economic cycles and also to strengthen their legitimacy in front society. “On a short-term basis, marketing efforts may improve museum finances, but for a sustainable financial strategy, museums need to strengthen stakeholder relationships to secure legitimacy and thereby insure their social and economic stability” (Lindqvist, 2012, p. 6). Some proposals are addressed to increase dialogue between parties and fostering benchmarking (Lindqvist, 2012; Zorloni, 2009) but also to work more strategically and understand which factors are accountable from an stakeholder’s perspective to measure museum’s performance and success (Cole, 2008; Zorloni, 2009). Beyond the old traditional metrics (total number of visitors and amount of funds raised) other factors like reputation, audience satisfaction, employee satisfaction, museum governance and organizational climate are starting to be considered among museum’s executives as critical for their organizational goals (Zorloni, 2009). Some of these goals, like museums governance or employee satisfaction can be encompassed in the domain of CSR.
Despite no systematic research about CSR in art museums, these institutions have been working unconsciously in CSR practices (Edwards, 2007). After the recession, and with the aim to economically survive, museums in the European context had to stress their value into their communities by different means: attracting broader groups in society (being more inclusive in their programs and activities with special attention to children, youth, elderly or disabled people), participating in the local economy with tourism development or fostering urban renaissance in depressed areas (i.e. case of Tate Modern in London), and developing the
learning society (museums apart of their exhibition activities they have strong role in education, preparing seminars, conference, workshops many times with free access to their resources) (INTERCOM, International Comitte of Management, 2014). All in all, we have observed in the
last decade an increased interest by museums to formulate strategies on the role of museums in society.
In the Netherlands, the campaign for increase their social value and the strategic approach to the private sector for their economic sustainability has been led by the Netherlands Museum Association. In 2011 they released a report developing the five core values of
museums with special focus in their social responsibility and accountability: collection value (or heritage value), connecting value (with people and community), educational value, experience value (or opportunity for enjoyment) and economic value. Moreover, their final statement was: ‘’identifying the public value is a beginning, the next step is for the museum sector, government and the private sector to join forces in order to capitalize this value in an innovative way’’ (Netherlands Museums Association, 2011, p.73).
Thus, to conclude, although research about CSR in art museums, as we understand it nowadays, has been neglected, we observe an increased attention to the stakeholder approach as a sustainable strategy for the viability of art institutions and also the interest for the practice of some internal and external initiatives that we could consider as socially responsible.
Corporate social responsibility
Since the early days of CSR, many different definitions have been used to describe the concept of CSR. The most cited definition is the four-part definition by Archie B. Carroll or “the pyramid of CSR”: ‘The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time’ (Carroll, 1979, p. 500). CSR’s economic responsibility designates the obligations for firms to be productive; legal refers to firms’ accomplishment of their economic responsibility within a legal framework; ethical requires that firms accomplish with societal values and norms with an appropriate behavior, and philanthropic is described as ‘‘purely voluntary’’ in contributing to the betterment of society. Since then many researchers defined CSR according to one of the layers of Carroll’s pyramid, resulting into a large amount of diverse interpretations and making of CSR an evolving concept.
Later on, Schwartz and Carroll (2003) presented the three-domain model which embraces all relevant aspects of CSR interrelating and challenging the assumption of a hierarchical relationship among the economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic spheres. In the same line of argumentation, one relevant approach for our study is the one that consider CSR as a cluster concept which overlaps with such ideas as business ethics, corporate citizenship, sustainability, environmental responsibility and corporate philanthropy (CP) (Matten and Moon, 2005), diminishing the idea of pure categories of CSR and making of CP one equal domain. Corporate philanthropy as strategy
We understand CP as the CSR’s initiative of a firm addressed to support social causes with monetary donations, product or services and is the type of CSR activity most practiced in relation with art museum and cultural institutions by firms. As part of the broader concept of CSR, CP has captured an increased attention by academics over the last years with a particular interest in its strategic component (Bae and Cameron, 2006; Campbell, Moore and Metzger, 2002; Hoeffer, Bloom and Keller, 2010; Lii and Lee, 2012; Porter and Kramer, 2002; Saiia, Carroll and Buchholtz, 2003). All these authors consider philanthropic initiatives with a strategic intent, seeking win-win situation by allocating resources in a way that both the
community and the company benefit from it. This lead to find a new definition for philanthropic activities as opposed to altruism or without concern to reward, as strategic philanthropy:
“strategic philanthropy is an example of the firm seeking to achieve a synergetic outcome by targeting corporate resources at societal problems or issues that resonate with the core values and mission of the firm” (Saiia et al., 2003, p. 2).
A sound and successful example of strategic philanthropy is the one designed by Apple Computers in the 90’s. The company started to donate computers to the educative sector
(schools and universities) in order to provide a social benefit but also introducing its products to young people and teachers, who decades after have become loyal consumers of its products. As Porter and Kramer (2002) stated, “when corporations support the right causes in the right way they set in motion a virtuous cycle” (p.14).
In order to know whether corporate philanthropy was really becoming a real strategy among firms and not an academic construct, Saiia et al. (2003) gathered data on corporate giving in several companies in the UK. The results confirmed the belief that CP was evolving to fit in a more competitive market but also that strategic philanthropy was regarded with skepticism. As other CSR initiative, the assumption that supporting the community creates a positive corporate image leads to stakeholders’ suspicion that economic motivations prevail.
Campbell et al. (2002) made a categorization of four possible motivations for
philanthropy involvement (strategic, altruistic, political and managerial) advocating for a mix of them, some studies (Bae and Cameron, 2006; Lii and Lee 2012), in order to overcome
skepticism have tested the relationship between CP and image and reputation searching for the effects of the public suspicious in the firm’s motivations for giving. These studies revealed that CP generates more favorable evaluations than other kind of CSR initiatives, such sponsorship or cause-related marketing CRM.
All in all, we argue that these findings and recent research support the idea that CP should be one of the most valued and practiced CSR initiatives among firms. CP is the CSR initiative that lower consumer suspicious and skepticism precisely because of its strategic
component; it fosters a win-win situation, for the cause and the business, that help to cope in consumer minds with the mixed motivations of a firm. Moreover, despite the self-interest of the parts these strategies bring a broader benefit for society. As Saai et al. (2003) noticed strategic philanthropy confront us with a paradox that, like many other, has the potential to foster a new mindset for the betterment of the general well-being.
To end up, we draw on this strategic component of philanthropy because we understand that first, it’s congruent and it will be applied increasingly by firms in the future, and second, this should be regarded for museums in developing their CSR initiatives.
Congruency
Recent literature about CSR and CP (Elving, 2013; Du et al., 2010; Lii and Lee, 2012; Vock et al., 2013) have been busy with the “Catch 22” phenomenon, or how to overcome stakeholder skepticism when communicating socially responsible activities. Firms are encouraged to be socially responsible and discourage to communicate their engagement and this is because consumers are more positive about these firms involved in CSR than those who are not (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001) but also suspicious about the real motives of engaging in social responsible practices, and this skepticism might have a negative influence on public attitude towards the company (Bae and Cameron, 2006; Becker-Olsen, Cudmore and Hill, 2006; Elving, 2012; Ellen et al., 2006).
In order to overcome this skepticism, apart to advocate for strategic philanthropy, some line of research has been interested in the effects of fit, or the perceived congruence by the public between a cause and the company’s business. “Stakeholders often expect companies to support those social issues that have a good fit, or a logical association, with their core corporate activities” (Du et al., 2010, p.12). For instance, a tobacco company supporting an sport event would be considered a low fit, meanwhile the gift of Apple’s computers to schools and universities mentioned before is a successful example of a high fit.
Regardless some mixed results about fit, most research have found that high fit has a positive influence on the attitude towards the company (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001) and decreases the level of skepticism (Ellen et al. 2006). This positive effect of high fit is normally explained by congruence theories, with its roots in Heider’s (1958) balance theory, which encompass the belief that consumers value harmony among their
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and that they are motivated to maintain consistency among these elements.
Following the balance theory and considering the positive relationship between high fit cause-firm and positive attitude towards the company, we imagine that firms that practice CSR would like to support those causes that have a high fit with their core business but also have
social responsible initiatives and behavior. Moreover, we believe that firms willing to donate should consider the CSR policies of the organization they want to support as part of the attributions to make a good fit, in order to be congruent and keep this harmony among public feelings and thoughts and then overcome skepticism.
Reciprocity
If the balance theory and the principle of congruency could explain why firms should collaborate and support mainly art museums that apply CSR practices as a way to skip
skepticism from the public and keep their reputation, we wonder which is the principle or theory that should explain why public and other stakeholders might think museums need to apply CSR initiatives. For this we draw on the Mauss’s (1990) idea of reciprocity suggested by Alexander (2014).
The work ‘’The Gift” (1990) of the French sociologist (1872-1950) was the foundation of the social theories of reciprocate and gift exchange. He draw on the archaic exchange system or way of giving with its implicit obligations: to give, to receive and, most important to
reciprocate. This system, practiced between groups (vs individuals), worked to build not just alliances and wealth but also solidarity, its self-interested but in parallel care about the welfare of others, reflecting two human behaviors pervasive in all the spheres of our society.
In that way, his works helps to understand the system in which contemporary ‘’giving’’ is embedded. In other words, donations and gifts are not as such, they are encompassed in a system of obligations:
“When a corporation or government agency gives to the arts, the arts-organization recipient must return specified and unspecified benefits to the funder. Corporate philanthropy obtains on a quid pro quo basis, in which corporations expect to receive benefits from their gifts (advertising exposure, corporate functions in the arts venue, private tours of the exhibition, or the backstage)’’ (Alexander, 2014, p.365).
Specifically, the Mauss’s idea of the gift is followed by a threefold system of obligations: the obligation to give, the obligation to receive and the obligation to reciprocate. The obligation to give by corporate is not a real or regulated one but is supported by the idea of firms to return to society what they get from it. The obligation to receive by the museum is also a moral one. There is no obligatory rule to follow but just in rarely circumstances (suspicious of money-laundry or very low fit with the cause) donation are refused due to the scarcity of means, its own nature and goals. Finally, the obligation to reciprocate is becoming the crucial one. Corporate, in their interest for accomplish with stakeholders expectations of being social responsible, give to some causes with clear strings and benefits in exchange attached, and museums and the public are aware of this. This obligation of reciprocate is fully understood and
accepted because beyond the specific interest of corporations (i.e. publicity of the brand in all the displays of an exhibition) there is a broader benefit for society (i.e. the possibility of enjoy an exhibition that could not be shown without this support).
Thus, we imagine that museums as an institution that receives gifts from corporate, but also constantly from society (as recipient of public funds), should return to them and reciprocate not just with some particular benefits but also acting socially responsible and having a sound policy in this field.
Interestingly to see is that, provided by different perspectives and areas of research, the idea of reciprocate regarded by museums is a viewpoint in line with the mindset of strategic corporate philanthropy applied by firms. Both advocate for the paradox that a mutual self-interest of the parties can eventually bring ‘’altruistic’’ results with broader benefits to society.
Method
Sample
The target for this study has been art museums in the Netherlands and their corporate donors. The convenience this sample is based in two facts: first, art museums exemplifies the situation of many other cultural institutions and nonprofit organizations that are suffering shortages in their funding; and second, Dutch museums, despite the willingness of the government to make them reach some financial autonomy, still remain largely supported by public funds (Ministry of OCW, 2014). This represents a key moment to observe the transition and application of new fundraising strategies. Additionally, it has been also influential for the sample’s choice the experience of the author as a fundraiser and a cultural manager in the museum’s field for more than ten years, which facilitates some previous knowledge in the area.
Our purposive sample was composed for four staff members of developing or/and communication departments in the following museums: Rijksmuseum (Amsterdam), Stedelijk (Amsterdam), Van Abbemuseum (Eindhoven) and Cobra Museum (Amstelveen). In order to provide triangulation, we also interviewed three representative of corporate donors in different museums in the Netherlands. Among the art museums, the selection was made considering some diversity in terms of their scope (from classic art museums to contemporary art
collections, e.g. from Rijskmuseum to Van Abbemuseum) and their financial status (extensively supported by public subsidies or private funded, e.g. from Stedelijk Amsterdam to Cobra Museum). Meanwhile, regarding corporate donors, we made a selection of the author’s contacts and the contacts facilitated by some museums, not matter their sector or donation amount, providing diversity to the sample.
In the design of this research we have used a qualitative method. The scarce literature regarding CSR in art museums, and the exploratory character of the study, suggested the convenience of this approach, which can give us more in-depth information of the relevant themes and
dimensions to consider for future quantitative analysis. We have used grounded theory, allowing theoretical ideas to come up from the data collected (Bryman, 2012).
We performed between 15th November and 8th December 7 semi-structured interviews, 4 to managers in different museums (Appendix 1) and 3 to the corporate donors representatives (Appendix 2), in order to assess the application and their opinion about CSR initiatives in art museums. The interviews were mainly located in the participant's’ premises but also online via Skype. They lasted on average between 30 and 45 minutes and they were recorded and
transcribed verbatim. After the transcription, the different interviews were transferred to Atlas. ti for open and selective coding (Appendix 3). Finally, from the data reduction different categories/dimensions were established as described in the concept-indicator model (Appendix 4) and explained further in the Results section.
Sensitizing Concepts
‘’Change’’ and ‘’opportunities and challenges’’ have been the sensitizing concepts guiding the analysis. Museums in the Netherlands are right now in an inflection point between their old comfortable financial status and the future economic challenges. Foreseeing new scenarios with reductions in their governmental funding, museums have to find new ways to engage with their stakeholders, involve their communities and attract more diverse and larger number of visitors. All in all, they need to legitimize their activity in front their current financial partners and look for new alliances for their long-term survival (Cole, 2008; Linqvist, 2012; Zorloni, 2009).
Results
Through the analysis and reduction of the data, three different dimensions emerged: strengths and weaknesses, between two tools, opportunities and challenges.
Strengths and weaknesses: trying to be the museum for every Dutchman
Art museum’s managers and donors, were all aware about the extent and application of CSR measures in art museums in the Netherlands and felt in different manner responsible for. Aspects related with good governance (e.g. transparency, accountability) and fair labour practices (e.g. good working conditions, maternity leaves) were not observed as an issue, due in part because most of the museums were following standards like the Governance Code of Culture (Cultuur+Ondernemen, 2014) and a Collective Labour Agreement (CAO). Sustainable and environmental measures (e.g. energy efficiency, water consumption) differed considerably
among museums: from museums applying for a ‘’green certificate’’ like the Stedelijk Amsterdam to those doing not much like the Cobra Museum in Amstelveen, going through museums trying their best like the Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven. However, they all agreed that diversity within the museum was neglected and still far from the social expectations, whereas community involvement was ‘’the jewel in the crown’’.
Stepping behind, diversity. The composition of the museums in the Netherlands were depicted in the same fashion way for all the participants. They described a predominantly white and heterosexual composition of the staff, more female than male in total numbers, but with more chances to find a man the higher you move in the hierarchy. Other races were better represented among technicians, security staff and other less qualified jobs. Two participants, made the following remarks in this regard:
I think in average is 65% women, the high you get in the organization the percentage get less, it’s how it is [resignation tone]
…in terms of diversity within the employees I would say there is much to gain because well in my department, it’s the development department, there’s 16 people of which 15 are women (laughs) and white and straight, yeah this is the kind of diversity in my department, there is a… of course that the office jobs are, I have to say, whiter than the rest of departments […] a lot of head of departments in these organizations are female but then directors are men [laughs]… Moreover, even realizing that this was a replica of the art world in general, participants did not feel comfortable with this situation, questioning themselves and the institution. Three respondents expressed it this way:
I think the work doesn’t reflect in any sense the… let’s say society. For instance, I have since three weeks a temporary assistance, he is from Surinam, so is black and he is the only person in this matter […] the only not white person in four years I work here! I think he’s also the first one. What you see in the visual art world, it’s a very white world in general…
…but then again we are all whites, 30’s, 40’s, 50’s year old, so how diverse are we!?
…well you know, I think that when you call it the national museum of the Netherlands and you want to be the museum for every Dutchman (laugh) reflect that society, that’s what I would say…
Frontrunner, community involvement. Almost all the participants in the interviews were able to describe some activity addressed to involve their community, which in many cases were very original and innovative examples of engagement. For instance, the case of the ‘’Blikopeners’’ explained by the anonymous staff member in the Stedelijk Museum:
I think also some projects that include the communities of Amsterdam, for example the ‘’Blikopeners’’ […] it’s a Dutch word for these peer-educators, they are young people from about 15 to 19 so they are actually employees of the museum […] it’s really fun and they also give a tour to people of their age in the museum so it’s a really a way… this group also consist of… you know, from Amsterdam Zuid-oost to… you know, kids that come from richer neighborhoods like Zuid or the center, so we try to have a really diverse group of people
Furthermore, they described these activities feeling proud of the institutions they worked for or support as a donor, but also being aware of the relevance of these initiatives for their community:
I think is twice a year we have something called the ‘’Prachtnacht’’, the beautiful night, or the magnificence night and this is for families with children with disabilities and I was participating in this... to volunteer of course! in this whole evening, the entire museum is open and I think last time we were like a hundred volunteers from within the Rijksmuseum employees, to each guide one of the families through the museum
I think that Boijmans is a good example, yes, Boijmans has an important role for the art world in Rotterdam, they make excursions for young people and provide transport to make possible they visit the museum, these are young people from neighborhoods that have difficulties to visit museums. Thus, I think they are very aware of this [meaning social responsibility and community involvement]
Confronting this general opinion, two participants made interesting remarks about the risks museums can face when they do not engage with their publics:
…we are not supported enough by our direct community around us and we need that support in political difficult times because eventually the cost of the building for the community to give it to us is really high and this is a huge amount and people watching, looking at it, will say ‘’why do you spend so much money on our museum and there’s not…? you don’t do anything for us’’ […] so that’s work to be done, it doesn’t mean we change our program, it means that we should put more effort in explaining our program to our community
Van Abbe is owned by the Eindhoven municipality and there was some criticism about a couple of years ago, that they did not take the community into account enough and what I really appreciate about Charles (director of the museum) is that he takes this criticism serious and since a couple of years he really tries very deliberately to involve the community in a lot of different ways, there was the 80 years anniversary this year where they had you know, they open up the museum for 80 hours and they had a lot of dedicated actions to really attract people of the city towards the museum
Between two stools: searching for a good fit
Along the interviews we have observed some tension in relation the twofold nature of the application of CSR measures in art museums: they move between the public and the private, between the art and the business world, and between the past and the present.
Private/public. Most of the participants agreed that museums with government funding are more accountable in front of society than private, thus they should be more active in the application of social responsible initiatives. Some opinions were:
Because they are public institutions you know, you have to. You are subsidized by the public, so you have to be there for the public, this means you have to be accessible, you have to think about diversity, the environment, you know… all these things that are named within […] for
corporations we often hear this horrible stories “oh people are exploited, bla bla bla…” and don’t you expect these things to happen in public institutions and I don’t think they do because they are public institutions so they have to be accountable more and the expectations are different from the public
I think every institution should like pay attention to it and the bigger you are the bigger responsibility is […] so yeah, all these topics we’ve been talking about like in terms of
sustainability, in terms of diversity, in terms of emancipation, in terms of working conditions... I think museums like all organizations have responsibility to develop that as well, there is a constant monitor […] but I do think that we as national museum we have the role of you know, give the right example, specially because we are in a very large part government funded, so yeah, we do have a responsibility
...they are a little bit more elitist [meaning Huis Marseille and De Pont, two private museums]. It’s a private museum, they are not accountable for anybody, so they can do what they want… I think they do also things but, obviously, a museum like Boijmans is scrutinized by the
municipality, by everybody, right? And they need to accomplish with these things
Art/Business. Along the conversations with the interviewees we also observed that museums strive to find the right place, or ‘’the good fit’’, for their own social responsible initiatives when they compared themselves with the business world. On one hand, some participants showed skepticism about the label CSR as known in the business world. This is how one respondent explains it:
I did during my business studies seminars based on CSR and it was really hot topic and I kind of have a wrong feeling about it because it’s seems like fake often. I mean, I think in the end it’s good, the output is good but the intention is often for marketing purposes, instead of that is really ingrained in the whole company. So what I think the danger of that initiatives is that often they say is really good but the outcome is not as good as they say it is, or something is not hot anymore and they move onto another project and drop it and leave the community you know, wrecked
And on the other hand, some participants recognized the useful and pragmatic socially responsible mindset of the business world:
… the strange thing is that actually in this advertising world I was always -four years, five years ago- and now I’m sure is much more even, we were very on stage working for clients always on environmental issues, we were always talking about responsibility for brands towards to society. The agencies are working for themselves always thinking how we can make our building better, so cause less energy and all these… they were like, part of the business because social
responsibility is also business and everybody in the business world knows that if you don’t take care of it, it will come back to you, so I was really frustrated when I started to work in the ‘’so-called responsible world of culture’’ [ironic remark]
Thus, although most of the participants admitted that there is still much to do to regarding CSR in museums, they generally considered that the best way for a museum to be social responsible was through its collection, its exhibitions and the stories and discussions displayed within. These are some opinions:
…when it comes down to social responsibility they [meaning Van Abbemuseum] like to be part of discussions, they like to provoke ideas, they like more artist to be part of their context, so ‘’art pour l’art’’ it’s not something that this museum really condones, they always like artist who do something where they live, in that they make special connections, they like young artist who are talent thought
…that’s why I’m precisely doing an effort about this [meaning diversity], because the artist we work with, most of them are from not western countries. For instance, this year we had a residency in Barcelona jointly with Hangar, and we had an artist from Kenya, one from China, one from Vietnam, one from India, another from Pakistan and from Korea, two women in total but not from western cultures at least
…the museum is trying to be more open about also the less fortunate side of the Dutch history. When the museum opened in 2013 after the renovation everybody was very excited about the museum like reviews where through the roof… the only point of crisis was that the colonial times were not displayed enough sufficiently or explained sufficiently, but lately there has been a development also within the global political spectrum like this is specially the race thing but also the gender thing and also sexuality thing has been a developing topic at become more and more present and more talked about by minorities themselves… you know, they get more a platform Present/future. Finally, the last focus of tension in the applicability of CSR measures came when comparing the current situation with the plans for the future. Most of the museums bearing in mind their weakest aspects of CSR, they were already setting plans and strategies in order to improve them in the coming years. Two participants said:
…that [meaning diversity] is something that the museum has taking into account, especially this year, the last years and the coming years it’s really focused point for us well to increase diversity among our staff members
…we are in a period until the end of 2017 now, planning period, and we have to enter in a new one, so we are thinking about what are our main goals compared to what they are now for the future and being inclusive, being holistic are among them
Opportunities and challenges: telling the story and connecting with stakeholders
In relation with the potential of CSR measures most of the participants showed some agreement about the opportunities and challenges to face. First, social responsibility should be ingrained in the culture of organization set up and promoted by the management and spread among the employees; second, museums should be in the forefront being an example to society applying these initiatives; third, there is potential to connect and engage with stakeholders, including donors and financial partners, through CSR; and fourth, it is necessary to find the right way to tell the story and show the impact in society of this initiatives in the performance of the institution.
Top-down, inside-out approach. Along the interviews all the participants agreed that the responsibility for the application of these initiatives should be carried out by the director and the managing staff, showing in some cases kind of a criticism, like these two respondants:
…maybe our core business is cultural, we have the idea that we don’t have to take any effort in doing, in putting energy in this part or side… […] and directors are very much similar in the art world, totally different that directors that I knew from very commercial directors in the
advertising world, Americans that were alike, extremely commercial but also extremely responsible
…but it should be also a top-down thing, I think within in a company […] it can also be a part of the internal community building practicing CSR or trying to get people to… for instance also for funding the ‘’Prachtnacht’’ that I was just talking about… there’s actually, we call it, the ‘’Rijskrun’’, there is like this team that does a half of a marathon each year and then you fund these employees and all the money goes into making this possible, so I think this kind of initiatives can actually help the employee community grow and go stronger […] I mean there’s 700 hundred people working here and you are going to tell me that nobody is interested in?! [laugh]
Regardless the criticisms, most of the interviewees considered very important that employees felt proud and part of the social responsible initiatives of the institution. Two participants stated:
Rijksmuseum is an icon of Dutch tradition and history, they know that they have to represent Amsterdam and the Netherlands to the whole world and that is a big responsibility and of course they take care that everybody comes there, young and old, handicapped or not can enter and they all go away with at least what they expected to see, the famous things you have to be able to make that people see it, you have also practical things you have to address so the Rijkmuseum I think… to work there.. it’s very easy to get people, make them proud, I think it’s impossible to hear that you don’t feel part, what you need over there is a director that give everybody who works there the feeling is part of…
I do appreciate if the company has really made it its own mission seems to ingrain it into all of his employees so I think it’s important for museums as well that everybody is aware of that. I mean you need diversity, you need have a durable museum, so all these things…
Showing a direction. Another interesting concept emerging from the interviews were that one of the main goals for museums nowadays should be to become a ‘’transistor’’ of values and ideas. In this way, being in the forefront, generating discourse, providing meaning and reflecting ideas on debate in society could ultimately legitimize their activity. These are some opinions about it:
…what we can do for society is show a direction where to go, if people would accept it, I don’t know, but we know that is difficult to them to connect by our work, we should give a good example. A museum should be always about future and always about be in the forefront […] and I think eventually that would safe any museum if the political discussion would become difficult, we have seen how the political discussion destroys museum. This happened in Oss, nearby, the Jan Cunen museum in Oss, the museum of Schiedam, the Stedelijk museum of Schiedam. Both museum that were highly dependent of money from local community, council and the moment that they had financial problems they had no other story that financial problems
…you have to provide meaning, there has to be something behind, you have to be relevant, you have to think in those terms, you can’t live in an isolation… [unintelligible] what’s my position and from that position I have to be there where people think I can make a difference
Connecting through CSR. For many participants was difficult to answer to the question ‘’what do you think CSR could bring to the museum? more legitimacy? better
reputation? more stakeholder’s satisfaction?’’. In part we assume that this was a language issue due to the use of terminology from the social sciences and communication field. However, when we explained some examples, or asked for very specific collaborations, most of the answers were very positive in relation with the possibilities of gain more engagement and funding from corporate donors:
…well I do think that for corporate donors as well as other donors, it’s interesting to tied themselves to projects that it’s very durable, you know, it markets well […] we are also looking at sponsor deals to include this kind of programing [meaning programs to be energy efficient] but these are not sponsor deals that have finalized yet so I can’t give any names but this is something that is really attractive for corporate partners specially, yes!
I think is possible [meaning engage with corporate donors], we don’t do it yet but we are thinking about going to few larger technology-based companies with a lot of international workers and they need museum like this [with social responsible initiatives], they need places like this, their employees are becoming more and more important, their social awareness of their employees is vastly growing, so it would be a logical thing to connect
They also mentioned different ways to connect and engage with other stakeholders or financial partners. As described by two participants, these is the case of foundations, which are increasingly interested in get involved in social responsible projects, or the pro-bono
collaborations:
…foundations of course they are interested often in these education projects or if you have more diversity… I mean I know that for example the Amsterdam Fonds Voor Kunst it’s more interested right now in more diverse projects, they are looking into finance more these projects, so of course you are looking at what your partners, stakeholders are interested in
I’m sure a lot of these companies have a very serious social responsible approach in their own business and I’m also quite sure they would be positive to if we would work on that and we would share that with them ‘’look what we are doing and can you help us? Because we don’t have a manager for social responsibility, we don’t have the money to have such member, you have, can we talk with the manager, can you advise us?”
On the other hand, one of the respondents was hesitating about the possibility to engage with corporations through CSR, we put an example of a museum making a temporary exhibition in a country with dubious respect for human rights. Afterwards, he made an interesting point regarding the effects on reputation for the corporations supporting the institution:
I think all boils down to them [meaning corporate donors] caring about their own reputation so they also don’t want sponsor organizations that they are making a… [unintelligible] [laughs] you know… I think… of course… I cannot speak for everybody but of course they would be
questioning their own willingness to sponsor a project like that
Furthermore, other ways to connect with stakeholders emerged from the interviews. Particularly, it was very interesting to observe the willingness of some institutions to share knowledge among museums regarding their social responsible projects and also among target groups in society. This is how the participant of Stedelijk talked about the ‘’Onvergetelijk’’ program (for people with Alzheimer) that they are developing in partnership with the Van Abbemuseum, and how one of the respondents explained their collaboration with constituencies for their next exhibitions:
I think that the Van Abbemuseum is further that we are as a museum so this is a really help for us to partner with them and to learn from them and to see ‘’what are they doing?’’ and ‘’how are they doing it?’’ and ‘’how can we learn from this?’’. And also we have our own expertise mainly based on this ‘Onvergetelijk’’ program which we can use and implement in other museums …yeah, in our new collection presentation, which will be also next spring we’ll work with constituencies and they really make the exposition… together with them, and they are changing perspectives […] there are students working upon our collection doing their end presentations for high school, and we show them also in the museum next to our collection, we have the works of the young people so that’s all about inclusiveness, holistic, so we really want to entangle with society
Telling the story. During the interviews also emerged the challenge for museums to communicate their social initiatives. Some participants declared that these are things they do not talk about:
…it’s something we don’t talk about but what we do, there are always a lot of volunteers in each museum, a lot of time there are social conscious, but we don’t talk about it a lot, we have all kind of programs […] when you look at the websites there’s a lot of things going on and what do you communicate and what’s happening… you don’t communicate [laugh] […] we do these things but we don’t talk about it […] or not enough, maybe it’s not enough, maybe it’s good to start talking about…
I think for example if they [meaning the public] would drink a cup of coffee, after think that the beans of that coffee are from a biological or from a small independent farmer […] I think people would think this is very normal and they would think is very logical from a museum serve that kind of coffee […] I think they would appreciate it... we have this kind of coffee, we don’t talk about it […] on other levels I think they would appreciate it if they would see like somebody from a different culture watching over the art but to be honest, I don’t think that our audience really cares about it, but if we offer it and we talk about it they would appreciate it
They pointed out to two intertwined reasons for their communication problems: the public seems not to be interested in social initiatives and most museums still use old metrics to report their performance. This creates a dilemma for museums who feel trapped between offering ‘’a nice Sunday experience’’ for the greatest number of public by programing commercial exhibitions, and making programs to specific groups underrepresented in society, with more social discourse and meaning. Two respondants said:
…you know, the museum, we are always balancing between being in the front position and talking about our visitors and our visitors’ numbers and which language to use […] but what’s the real impact of museums making in society? […] so I think we are not good enough yet in telling that story […] and people are, our visitors are not good enough yet to find that story, there is still a language problem
I think there is a dilemma between being social responsible, be inclusive and draw the attention of the public. All the museums have to demonstrate that this year had such a number of visitors, more than the last year… and this shouldn’t be like that. You can have less number of visitors but better targeted, people that can take more advantage of what museums are offering and with this there is a big pressure, pressure for make blockbusters, exhibitions that can bring a large number of people, whereas if you make an exhibition with artist from other contexts and no western antecedents less public will approach to the museum. In there they have a dilemma.
Discussion
With this research we aimed to find the CSR business case for museums, see to what extent CSR measures can increase the legitimacy of their activities and also the engagement of their financial partners, which could lead ultimately to more funding. Rephrasing one of our interviewees, ‘’it seems logical to connect’’, and like this it has been stated for our participants. Corporations, with special attention to the new technological and startups (Maize, 2016; Rozenberg, 2016), have more social responsible employees, who need more involvement not just in their own companies but also in the initiatives their corporations are setting within their philanthropic chapter (Morsing et al., 2008). There is more ethicality and social awareness but
also there is business in CSR, as another participant pointed out. Be energy efficient saves money, but get involved with your community gives you a reason and a story for when financial difficult times come, stay relevant and remain. And this works both ways, for corporations who are supporting museums and for museums who are searching for financial partners. Thus, it seems again logical, that museums keep congruent and reciprocate in a ‘’maussian’’ way being social responsible.
In addition to this, we have observed many other interesting findings that bring us back to the theory. First, we have seen that museums have their best fit of their CSR in their
collection and exhibitions. Museum’s staff members and donors both agreed that there is no better way for a museum to be socially responsible that giving platform to diverse ethnic groups, environmental and social issues or minorities underrepresented in society through the display of their artworks. As corporations, museums have a good fit (Du et al., 2010) when their initiatives are directly related with their core business, in this case generate discourses and ideas through symbolic capital.
Another interesting finding has been to detect the dilemma that museums face when they have to communicate their social responsible initiatives. Most museums are applying to a greeter or lesser extent these kind of measures but they struggle to find the correct way to explain them to their audience. Part of the problem was identified by the same participants and described as the tension between being inclusive programing social content, and thus less entertaining, but at the same time having to attract larger number of visitors every year. This confirms the urgency of many museums to adapt their metrics of performance (Cole, 2008; Zorloni, 2009) to a new accountability based on their real impact in society. On the other hand, there is a general idea that because of museums are expected to behave ethically, there is no need to communicate and talk about their efforts in this regard. However, by ‘’whispering’’ (Elving, 2013) they take the risk of not being relevant for their communities and also lose the opportunity to engage with financial partners, who are really interested in this side of the museum’s performance. Corporations increasingly need external platform, somebody speaking on their behalf, to communicate their social initiatives, to give them credibility and overcome the skepticism of their real motives for their CSR and philanthropy (Du et al. 2010).
We have confirmed as well how important is to have and inside-out approach for the communication of your CSR (Morsing et al., 2008) and make people participate in your social responsible initiatives. Pride and satisfaction (and its contrary feeling, disappointment and frustration) were emotions very present in most of the interviews, and not just for the employees but also for the donors. Involving your stakeholders in your good deeds make them feel proud
and the best ambassadors of your actions. CSR can be the glue for the internal community building and also for engage with your financial partners.
Related with this feeling, but less personal and more marketing oriented, we had in mind the concept of reputation. Although being a strongly related concept with CSR and the studies in this field, there was just one mention to it. This happened precisely when a negative example was explained to observe the risks of a company engaging in a dubious social initiative. Perhaps participants due to social desirability bias avoided use this term for
its instrumental denotation by corporations. However, the pried feeling predominance in most of the interviews reflected the personal commitment of both museum’s staff members and donors in these initiatives.
The last interesting finding was to observe the importance of knowledge sharing between museums regarding their CSR. Participants were able to recognize which were the strengths and weaknesses and also who was a frontrunner in this regard, and by doing this they were starting to work together, asking for help and advice. For instance, the collaboration between the Stedelijk and Van Abbemuseum in the “Onvergetelijk’’ program (focused on people with Alzheimer) have fostered the creation of an expertise center to offer their
knowledge in educative programs to other institutions. Particularly, it was remarkable the role of Van Abbemuseum; several participants recognized this institution as a frontrunner in
community involvement and social responsible initiatives. And this is perhaps the reason why a relatively small museum with a non-commercial, alternative and political collection and programming, is escalating positions in the last reputation report of the Reputation Institute (Reputation Institute, 2016).
Furthermore, the research has provided some insights of the CSR in Dutch art
museum’s that show some opportunities for a positive change. Managers have to be aware that there is room to improve their sustainable and environmental initiatives which can catch the attention of potential donors in the future, but also the diversity within their staff members that will increase internal satisfaction. In the meantime, they have to go on making a difference through their tangible (collections) and intangible assets (the knowledge acquired with their educative and social programs), which make them more accessible to many other publics, but also more attractive to financial partners who aim to have transferred these values and expertise. Moreover, museums with these changes can show a direction where to go to many other cultural and non-profit institutions who are searching as well for funding.
One limitation of this study was the number of participants. It would have been optimal to include more interviewees, specially from the corporate donor’s side to complete the
triangulation. However, the invitation to an interview was in many occasions rejected or cancelled due to the busy schedules of the participants, most of them travelling regularly or with higher priorities in that moment. In addition to that, there was a lack of willingness from the museum's staff members to provide contact information of their donors. Some advice for future research would be: first, widen the scope of the study with more participants; second, make a comparative research with other countries and cultures (Western vs Eastern, Anglosaxon vs European) which can provide a map of the different ways and context to finance culture and see to what extent social responsibility plays a part; and third, corroborate the hypothesis with a quantitative methodology research establishing correlation between CSR initiatives and willingness to fund or partner with art museums, searching for new potential mediators and moderators (community involvement innovation, degree of social orientation in the museum’s collection and exhibitions, quality of their educative programs, degree of knowledge shared among peers, employee’s pried, donor’s pried).
Museums are public and symbolic space and as such they represent the latin forum, the greek agora where everybody should have a platform to meet and reflect their ideas. In this particular space, where communication is the main transaction, an ethical behavior is assumed and expected to make possible the discussion, ‘’the polyphony’’ (Christensen and Cornelissen, 2010) and the sense-making of relevant discourses that will let us grow and feel proud as a developed society. In this way, we end up with a few words of one of our participants in the study:
‘’ I think that many museums are realizing that make a great exhibition is not enough, you need to organize events where people can meet, many people know each other on internet and don’t have a reason or place to meet physically and the museum could be a wonderful place for this. In this way, it could be also easier to be more inclusive, integrate people with other backgrounds and cultures’’
References
Anderson, M. L. (2004). Metrics of success in art museums. Getty Leadership Institute. Los Angeles, CA.
Alexander, V. D. (2014). Art and the twenty-first century gift: Corporate philanthropy and government funding in the cultural sector. Anthropological Forum, , 24(4) 364-380. Bae, J., & G.T. Cameron. (2006). Conditioning effect of prior reputation on perception of
corporate giving. Public Relations Review 32, no. 2: 144–50.
Becker-Olsen, K.L., B.A. Cudmore, & R.P. Hill. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behaviour. Journal of Business Research 59, no. 1: 46– 53.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why and how
consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods Oxford university press.
Byrnes, William J. (2009). Management and the Arts, Fourth Edition. Elsevier Focal Press. Camarero, C. & Garrido, M. J. (2009). Improving museums’ performance
through custodial, sales, and customer orientations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 38, no. 5: 846-68.
Campbell, D., Moore, G. & Metzger, M. (2002). Corporate philanthropy in the UK 1985- 2000: Some empirical findings. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(1/2): 29-41. Caldwell, N. G. (2000). The emergence of museum brands. International Journal of Arts
Management, , 28-34.
Caldwell, N., & Coshall, J. (2002). Measuring brand associations for museums and galleries using repertory grid analysis. Management Decision, 40(4), 383-392.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.
Carter, C. R. & Jennings, M. M.,(2004). The role of Purchasing in Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Logistics, 25(1), pp. 145-186.
CECP (2008). Business’s social contract: Capturing the corporate philanthropy opportunity. Insights from CEOs on achieving efficient philanthropy. Committee Encouraging
Corporate Philanthropy.
http://www.corporatephilanthropy.org/pdfs/research_reports/SocialContract.pdf. (accessed March 1 2016).
Center for Philanthropic Studies at VU University Amsterdam (2015). Giving in the Netherlands 2015. Report by Bekkers, Schuyt, and Gouwenberg. Retrieve from: http://test.giving.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/GIN2015_summary.pdf (accessed March 6 2016)
Catalan News Agency (2013, July 16). Judge believes the governing and main Catalan party CDC earned €5.1 million in an influence peddling case. Retrieve from:
http://www.catalannewsagency.com/politics/item/judge-accuses-the-governing-and-main-catalan-party-cdc-of-earning-5-1-million-in-an-influence-peddling-case (accessed
September 8 2016)
Cole, D. (2008). Museum marketing as a tool for survival and creativity: The mining museum perspective. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(2), 177-192.
Christensen, A. L., & Mohr, R. M. (2003). Not-for- profit annual reports: What do museum managers communicate? Financial Accountability & Management, 19(2), 139. Cultuur+Ondernemen (2014). Governance Code Cultuur.De 9 principes. Retrieve from:
http://www.governancecodecultuur.nl (accessed December 11 2016)
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L.E. (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications, Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B. & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1): 8-19.
Edwards, D. Corporate Social Responsibility of Large Urban Museums: The Contribution of Volunteer Programs. Tourism Review International, Volume 11, Number 2, 2007, pp. 167-174(8).
Elving, W. J.L (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: The influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol.19(4), p.277-292.
Ellen, P.S., Webb, D.J. & Mohr, L.A. (2006). Building corporate associations: consumer attributions for corpo- rate socially responsible program. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, pp. 147–157.
Hoeffler, S., Bloom, P.N. & Keller, K.L. (2010). Understanding stakeholder responses to corporate citizenship initiatives: Managerial guidelines and research directions. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 29(1): 78-88.
INTERCOM (2014). CSR and Museums Social responsibility and its many faces at museums. Report by Fleming. Retrieve from:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.670.7688&rep=rep1&type=pd f (accessed March 15 2016)
Kotler, P. & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Maignan, I., Hillebrand, B. & McAlister, D., (2002). Managing Socially Responsible Buying: how to integrate non-economic criteria into the purchasing process. European
Management Journal, 20(6), pp. 641-648.
Maize, R. (2016). Be Good, Be Profitable. Be Socially Conscious. Retrieve from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-maize/be-good-be-profitable-be-_b_10205190.html (accessed December 23 2016)
Matten, D. & Moon, J. (2005). A conceptual framework for understanding CSR. In Corporate social responsibility across Europe, edited by A. Habisch, 335-56. Berlin; New York: Springer.
Mauss, M. 1990 [1925]. The gift. (trans. W. D. Halls). London: Routledge.
Merz, M.A., Peloza, J. & Chen, Q. (2010). Standardization or localization? Executing corporate philanthropy in international firms. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15(3): 233-52.
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (2013). The Netherlands. Report by Bína,V., Oosterhuis, R., Verhoogt, R. Retrieve from:
http://www.egmus.eu/uploads/tx_usermusstatistic/Netherlands_EGMUS_country_report _oktober_2013.pdf (accessed March 14 2016)
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (2014). Culture at a glance. Retrieve from: https://www.government.nl/documents/reports/2015/03/02/culture-at-a-glance-2014 (accessed June 20 2016)
Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U. (2008). The ‘Catch 22’ of communicating CSR: Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2): 97-111.
Netherlands Museums Association (2011). The social significance of museums. Retrieve from: http://www.museumvereniging.nl/Portals/0/NMV%20'More%20than%20worth%20it'.pdf (accessed June 20 2016).
Lii, Y., & Lee, M. (2012). Doing right leads to doing well: When the type of CSR and reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1): 69-81.
Lindqvist, K. (2012). Museum finances: Challenges beyond economic crises. Museum Management and Curatorship, 27(1), 1-15.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F., & Reynes, S. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organizational Studies, 24, 195–216.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review. 80(12): 56-69.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12). Reputation Institute (2016). Reputation Ducth Top 30 companies. Retrieve from:
https://www.reputationinstitute.com/dutch-top-30.aspx (accessed December 15, 2016)
Roberts, S., 2003. Supply chain specific? Understanding the patchy success of ethical sourcing initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), pp. 159-170.
Rozenberg, N. (2016). Tech a driving force in socially conscious revolution. Retrieved from: http://www.techpageone.co.uk/downtime-uk-en/tech-driving-force-socially-conscious-revolution/ (accessed December 23, 2016)
Saiia, D.H., Carroll, A.B. & Buchholtz, A.K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy when corporate charity ‘begins at home’. Business and Society. 42(2): 169-201.
Schwartz, M.S. & Carroll, A.B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly. 13(4), 503-30.
Sen, S. & Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001) ‘Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility’, Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225– 243.
Sohn, Y., & Lariscy, R. W. (2012). A “Buffer” or “Boomerang?" The role of corporate reputation in bad times. Communication Research, , 0093650212466891. Zorloni, A. (2010). Managing performance indicators in visual art museums. Museum
