HOW A STRATEGIC SOCIAL PARTNERSHIP AND CAUSE-RELATED MARKETING STRATEGY CAN HELP THE METRO FOOD BANK SOCIETY LEVERAGE MORE RESOURCES FROM LOCAL BUSINESSES

by

Alex Handyside MBA MCIPD

Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

Copyright Alex Handyside, 2000

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine how the Metro Food Bank Society could leverage more donations from local businesses. Cause-Related Marketing and Social Partnerships are commonly used strategies for large corporations and national or international charities, but data on small charities and small or medium-sized businesses are scarce. The key success factors of numerous successful social partnerships were analyzed and an attempt was made to extrapolate and apply the findings to small-scale partnerships. Interviews with business and charity executives with experience of social partnerships confirmed those key success factors. The conclusion drawn was that a social partnership strategy would be an excellent way for the Metro Food Bank to attract more and larger corporate donations.

The goals, needs and assets of the Metro Food Bank were ascertained and used to select a number of corporate sectors of interest. A strategy was developed that focused on the Metro Food Bank’s strategic competitive advantage - its strong name and reputation, and its mission as a distributor of food. A risk assessment was conducted and a plan was prepared for the Metro Food Bank. The recommendations included using the ‘white space’ on the Metro Food Bank’s vans for the promotion of its business partners, involving Sobeys in a closer relationship, and numerous other innovative cause-related marketing promotions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cause-related marketing (CRM) and social partnerships are part of a very successful and increasingly popular strategy that provide greater mutual benefit to both partners and society as a whole in a win-win-win situation. However the data on social partnerships between small charities and small companies is scant. The study set out to determine if the data on large-scale social partnerships could be applied to small-scale ones. A literature search found the essential elements of partnerships in general and the key success factors of a social partnership in particular. These were then analyzed alongside the scant data on small-scale social partnerships. There being little difference between the two, it was decided to seek confirmation from a number of charity executives. They helped confirm that the data on large-scale successful social partnerships could indeed be applied to small-scale social partnerships.

But social partnerships have more than one side. It was thought that the key success factors from a business partner’s point of view may differ from those of a charity leader’s. Even if they did not differ, it was thought that knowledge of the other side’s perspective could help the charity produce a more attractive and comprehensive partnership proposal. It was decided to seek the opinions of a small number of business leaders whose companies are presently involved in small-scale social partnerships in the local area. They too confirmed the large-scale data was applicable to small-scale social partnerships.

One key success factor emerged dominant above all others - effective communication between, within and beyond the partners’ organizations was considered critical to the success of any partnership. Strategic fit was considered the next most important factor. Other factors included impact (on the partners and on society), mutual benefit, commitment, honesty and sincerity.

Frequent monitoring and evaluation were also considered important. During discussions on measuring ‘success,’ one particularly noteworthy item emerged: two business leaders stated that social partnership was judged by the business partner to be a success if the charity met its objective.

The Metro Food Bank Society (MFB) was scrutinized to see if had the resources and attitude to be a successful partner. It had a strategic competitive advantage - its name and reputation, and it had the right personnel to make a social partnership work. It had very limited experience of social partnerships, but it had excellent relationships with all of its donors and many local businesses. It was deemed that the Metro Food Bank had the right attributes to be a partner in a successful social partnership.

The challenge was to identify the most appropriate and qualified potential business partner and then incorporate that business partner’s objectives into a proposal that showed the Metro Food Bank to be the ideal charity for a social partnership. One business leader who was interviewed was very enthusiastic about assisting food banks in a non-cash way. He identified a number of possible CRM-style mechanisms and partnership opportunities that the MFB may be able to use. Two other leaders stated that personal contacts were the best way for a charity to get its foot in the door: cold-calling and begging letters were considered no substitute for face-to-face contact.

Three potential alternatives were identified: the status quo (the MFB is, after all, a very successful charity), a tactical CRM strategy, or a fully-fledged social partnership strategy. A risk assessment was conducted and it was concluded that social partnerships represented the most potentially rewarding and effective strategy, despite them being the most risky alternative. The main concerns from a charity’s perspective centred around the possible loss of reputation that an inappropriate partner or a deteriorating partnership may bring.

The MFB is first and foremost in the transportation business; its secondary function is the solicitation and distribution of food. To function effectively, it was determined that the MFB needs transportation, storage facilities, food, money, channels for promotion, human resources and business and office services. It was considered important to act sooner rather than later: social partnerships tend to be long-term, so the charity that dawdles may well find its ideal partner already taken. Three-way social partnerships (say, a famous brand name in an in-store cause marketing promotion) were identified as an area particularly worth exploring.

The final recommendations were that the MFB should pursue social partnership opportunities with auto dealers, food and food-service suppliers, banks, various media outlets and utility and communications providers. Measurement of media exposure was considered the best, most cost-effective method of measuring the social partnership’s success.

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Profile of the Organization

1.2 Project Background

1.3 Strategic Intent

1.4 Strategic Issues

2.0 SECTOR ANALYSIS

2.1 External Environment

2.2 Internal Environment

2.3 Regulatory Environment

2.4 The Charitable Sector

3.0 MARKETING ANALYSIS

3.1 Trends in Social Partnering

3.1.1 The Outlook for Social Partnering

3.2 Risk

3.2.1 Consumer Behaviour

3.2.2 The Competition

3.2.3 Risk Assessment

3.3 Profile of the Ideal Social Partnership

3.5.1 Business Sectors of Interest

3.6 Sobeys Inc. - A Prospective Business Partner?

4.0 STRATEGY

4.1 Key Success Factors

4.2 Alternatives

4.3 Developing a Strategy

4.3.1 Planning and preparing the partnership

4.3.2 Negotiating the partnership

4.3.3 Preparing the formal agreement

4.3.4 Managing the Program

4.3.5 Communicating the Program

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS and CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Conclusions

5.2 General Recommendations

5.3 Recommended Partners by Sector

5.3.1 Transportation Opportunities

5.3.2 Storage Opportunities

5.3.3 Food and Food-Service Opportunities

5.3.4 Fundraising and In-kind Opportunities

5.3.5 Business Services Opportunities

5.3.6 Human Resources Opportunities

5.3.7 Media and Promotion Opportunities

5.3.8 Third-Party Opportunities

5.3.9 Additional Opportunities

5.4 Recommendations for Developing a Partnership with Sobeys

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION

6.1 Designing the Implementation Plan

6.1.1 0 - 2 Months

6.1.2 3 - 6 Months

6.1.3 Once the Partnership is Established

7.0 EVALUATION

7.1 Evaluation from the MFB’s Perspective

References

Appendix A The Metro Food Bank Society

Appendix B Definitions

Appendix C Review of Relevant Literature

Appendix C1 Corporate Social Responsibility

Appendix C2 The Theory behind Social Partnerships

Appendix C3 Social Partnerships

Appendix C4 Learning from the Mistakes of Others

Appendix C5 Evaluating Social Partnerships

Appendix C6 Summary of Literature Review

Appendix D Interview Protocol

Appendix D1 Interview Protocol

Appendix D2 Verbatim Comments

The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair MP, Prime Minister, 24 February 1998.

Table of Figures

Figure C1-1 Characterization of the Company in Society

Figure C2-1 Business Objectives that CRM can Achieve

Figure C2-2 Reasons Companies in the US engage in CRM

Figure C5-1 Measuring methods used and preferred to evaluate CRM activities

"Business, in partnership with charities and causes, can play a vital role in the regeneration of communities. Cause Related Marketing is an exciting concept where both business and good causes can benefit. It also attracts new sources of funds, resources and support. I am sure that it will be one of the key developments in marketing for organizations in the future... I do hope, if you have not already done so, that you will consider what part Cause Related Marketing could play within your overall marketing and fundraising strategies."

HRH The Prince of Wales, addressing the Business in the Community Awards ceremony, July 1998.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Profile of the Organization

The Metro Food Bank Society is a misnomer: it does not hand out food to needy families and no-one lines up outside its Bedford Highway warehouse for food. The Metro Food Bank (MFB) is principally a freight forwarder of free, donated and reclaimed food.

Another common misconception amongst local citizens is that the MFB needs only surplus food to operate. The MFB’s second most important function is to solicit food donations - from manufacturers, distributors, stores, the public and restaurants and hotels. The MFB needs much more than food and transport, so it has developed relationships with many local companies to provide the MFB with a wide variety free or discounted business services [for a more in-depth analysis of the MFB see Appendix A]. The MFB has a limited ability to accept prepared and perishable food, so it recently began a capital campaign to raise funds for a refrigerated van, a commercial-size freezer and a larger refrigerator than it has at present. The MFB also needs approximately $800,000 each year to run.

The last misconception amongst consumers is that the MFB looks after the hungry of Halifax. "The Metro Food Bank Society commits itself to work in partnership with the community to enhance human dignity, by eliminating chronic hunger and alleviating poverty in the HRM." [Metro Food Bank Society Mission Statement 1999]. To anyone who visits their premises, their commitment to that cause is total and genuine. However, even the society’s mission statement is inaccurate because it does not describe the breadth of its role. The MFB is the central food collection, sorting and distribution point for 58 member agencies in the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM), but few consumers know, and fewer still know that it also acts as a collection and redistribution hub for all the affiliated food banks in the four maritime provinces through the National Food Share Program. First-time visitors to the MFB, who expect to see a large soup kitchen, are usually amazed at the sheer size of the operation - it is big - and many visitors are heard to exclaim "Wow! I never knew."

To help fulfil its mandate, the MFB has 15 full- and part-time staff and can call on 300-plus volunteers to provide almost 14,000 volunteer hours annually. The 15 members of the Board of Directors are from the non-profit sector, local business and the local community. The Executive Director, Dianne Swinemar, is a very dynamic, experienced, hands-on individual who is well known in the local community and on local media. She has on occasion received national attention as Chair of the Board of Directors for the Canadian Association of Food Banks. Doug Large is the MFB’s Resource Development and Communications Co-ordinator and is responsible for fundraising and relationship management. Kathy Chapman is the Food Solicitation Specialist and is responsible for seeking out surplus food donations. Mr. Large and Ms. Chapman work closely together because their roles occasionally overlap, especially when soliciting companies for cash and/or food donations.

The public may not know precisely what the MFB does, but the public certainly knows the MFB name. When Metro Halifax consumers were asked to name a popular local charity, the MFB was second only to the IWK Grace Hospital (which in itself is not a charity). The MFB name is frequently seen on Public Service Announcements and supermarket food bank bins. Sponsors and corporate donors, however, get little prolonged name recognition by the MFB: its vans are almost devoid of any advertising, and sponsors’ names and logos on print material are usually event-specific. The MFB appears to undervalue and underutilize its own name and it appears to under-exploit the names/brands of its sponsors and corporate donors.

Food drives are the ‘face’ the public recognizes, though they are but a very small part of what the MFB does and needs. It needs cash, business services and food. Of course, the MFB wants to collect, sort and redistribute food efficiently from one central location, but arguably, with careful planning, it could function without a warehouse. The MFB could not, however, function without transport. From a marketing perspective, needs are opportunities in disguise and the MFB has a significant number of opportunities. Where there are carefully presented opportunities, there are companies out there just waiting to grab hold of those opportunities for their own gain. The careful exploitation of a company’s corporate social responsibility [a detailed definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and other common terms is in Appendix B] presents the MFB with a potentially outstanding strategy to meet both parties’ needs in a balanced and mutually beneficial way, while at the same time serving the community better.

1.2 Project Background

The MFB Executive Director was approached by Saint Mary’s University student, Alex Handyside, in mid-1999 to see if the MFB was willing to take part in a Master of Business Administration consulting project investigating CRM and social partnerships from the perspective of a small charity. The MFB expressed keen interest in this fast developing field and a contract was signed on 26 Oct 1999.

The project began with an in-depth literature review of CSR, CRM and social partnerships [Appendix C]. The outcome of that review confirmed that the bulk of the data on hand referred to short-term (tactical) CRM and large-scale social partnerships: there were very little data available on social partnerships from a smaller, non-national charity’s perspective. Extrapolation of the large-scale data to the smaller-scale was conducted, but nevertheless it was decided to seek some reassurance from a number of smaller charities that had engaged in CRM and social partnerships. It was hoped that their views would confirm the findings from the literature review and reinforce the validity of the extrapolated data [the interview data are in Appendix D]. Although the interviews did both, it also made sense to speak to a number of local businesses that were presently in successful social partnerships in order to add to the data and present the other side’s perspective.

Having completed the secondary and primary research, a strategy was prepared incorporating CRM, sponsorship and social partnerships that would help meet the long-term goals of the MFB as well as its short-term objectives.

Given the opportunities available to the MFB, the challenge was to present those opportunities in the best possible package to the right corporate partner(s). Besides the lease deal with Chrysler, the MFB has some excellent in-kind relationships with local businesses - they either provide services for free, at a discount or at full price with an immediate donation back to the charity. Possibilities included leveraging the MFB’s existing relationships to the benefit of both sides and offering new relationships the opportunity to realize mutually beneficial gains.

1.3 Strategic Intent

The strategic intent behind this project is to have local businesses consider a relationship with the MFB as one of the prime means for marketing their products or services and one of the best instruments for promoting name and brand awareness. When a business is considering pursuing a charity to form a mutually beneficial relationship with, the MFB will be their charity of choice.

1.4 Strategic Issues

The goal is to increase the MFB’s corporate donations of cash, food and gifts in-kind. The challenge is to make the MFB stand out from other charities in the mind of donors, consumers and businesses, especially those businesses considering forming a social partnership.

The MFB is competing with:

• other charities for the most appropriate business partners and for a donor’s ‘donation dollar;’
• entertainment, sports, lotteries and gambling for consumers’ disposable income;
• non-affiliated food banks which may receive food directly from donors and other sources; and
• all other sources of advertising that distract a consumer from the MFB name (so-called ‘eye-candy’).

Two questions require answering: is it worth the risk to pursue social partnerships with local businesses? and if it is worth the risk, how can the MFB make best use of its name to leverage larger donations from businesses?

The main objective is to determine and assess the risks and rewards involved in social partnerships. The second objective is to determine the key success factors needed to form a successful partnership between the Metro Food Bank Society and local businesses. The final objective is to ascertain the most likely types of businesses for the MFB to partner with and suggest a strategy to achieve the goal.

The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair MP, Prime Minister, addressing the Business in the Community Awards ceremony, July 1998.

2.0 SECTOR ANALYSIS

2.1 External Environment

The MFB’s name, reputation and resources are its strategic competitive advantage. The MFB brand is well known and respected throughout HRM. The Executive Director’s name has been heard nationally through her work with the Canadian Association of Food Banks and as an anti-hunger advocate. In doing that work, the MFB name is occasionally heard around Atlantic Canada and is recognized beyond. Its logo and name are on each of its four vans and on most print material. Volunteers are recognizable at events by their nametags and purple MFB T-shirts. The MFB also promotes its brand awareness at parades, trade shows, sporting and cultural events. Fundraising and food drives occur off-site throughout the year.

The MFB has excellent relationships with local media and can usually rely on each media outlet to place a public service announcement when requested. Since 1997 the MFB has had its own domain name (www.MetroFoodBank.org is registered to PBNet of Halifax), but it has no active web-site.

Though it has sufficient transport for its local needs (Halifax - Dartmouth - Bedford - Sackville), the MFB often turns down food donations from beyond its central core area. Fresh fruit and vegetables from the Annapolis Valley are occasionally offered to the MFB, but the produce is turned down unless it can be delivered. The MFB also forgoes quantities of prepared and reclaimed food which become available after the MFB ceases its daily operations.

The lack of a web-site for so long is an embarrassment and represents a huge missed opportunity for promoting its existing sponsors, attracting new sponsors and donors, creating brand awareness, accepting on-line donations, building a database and as an outlet for its advocacy role. Electronic newsletters are a cheap and efficient way to inform donors, sponsors and the media of up-coming events and other newsworthy stories. Chat rooms and forums can bring together supporters and advocates from all around the world. Sponsors, business partners and corporate supporters could have a link to the MFB web-site on their own web-sites.

Though the MFB’s logo, the horn of plenty, is distinctive, it is less well known to consumers and, because of its detail, it does not reproduce or reduce well. Although the MFB’s name is very well known, it clearly has an image problem: most consumers either do not know what the MFB does or their knowledge of the MFB’s role is incorrect - a problem compounded by having the words food bank in its name. Food banks conjure up soup kitchens and handouts in people’s minds, whereas the MFB is in the food solicitation, collection, reclamation and distribution business.

The MFB’s operations occur year-round, but they are cyclical in nature - demand tends to peak in the two months following Thanksgiving. Unfortunately, this period also coincides with the arrival of poorer weather (reducing the amount of outdoor exposure and activities available) and the run-up to Christmas (when consumers’ self-centredness increases). Such an annual cycle may be predictable, but peaks of activity lead to severe demands for food, volunteers and transportation at a time when the organization may least be able to cope.

2.2 Internal Environment

The MFB is very well situated to take advantage of CRM and social partnerships. In fact, its situation is one of its main advantages and a potential leverage point - the MFB’s Bedford Highway warehouses are a small but high profile landmark on a high-traffic route located near a set of stop lights through which over 30,000 vehicles stop and pass each day. Its two buildings sit adjacent to each other and back onto the Bedford Basin. Its office space is modern and is not operating at capacity.

The organization has 300 active and dedicated volunteers, some of whom help out each day. Ms. Swinemar considers the existing staff numbers to be satisfactory for the day-to-day tasks the MFB is required to do. The MFB’s Resource Development and Communications Co-ordinator and Food Solicitation Specialist (Mr. Large and Ms. Chapman respectively) work full-time and are frequently working at capacity.

Many of the MFB’s business services are provided at a discount: heating oil, water, electricity, telephone, fax, cellular telephone, Internet and long-distance services. Most of its office equipment and furnishings were donated. The MFB is in one social partnership at present: one of its four vans is leased and maintained by the local Chrysler dealerships and donated to the MFB for the duration of the lease. Although the lease still has over a year to run, the MFB is hopeful the lease will be extended or renewed by the dealers.

The MFB is in good financial shape compared to many charities. It has an operating budget of almost $800,000 and a small loan outstanding, but no deficit. The MFB has an excellent relationship with the Royal Bank, and some of the Royal Bank’s employees are MFB volunteers. The MFB’s premises, recorded as a capital asset and valued at $290,000, were purchased in 1998 by HRM and leased to the MFB. Grants from HRM and the Province of Nova Scotia mean that the MFB is responsible for financing the remaining $72,000.

While the MFB’s warehouse is relatively spacious, it only approaches capacity near Christmas, the MFB’s busiest period. Of greater concern however are its inadequate cold storage facilities. A capital campaign is underway to obtain a large freezer and a larger refrigerator than the one it is using currently. A larger cold storage capacity will also necessitate the acquisition of a vehicle capable of transporting frozen food.

Another concern is the occasional overlap of Mr. Large and Ms Chapman’s roles. If a food solicitation call to a prospect develops into a potential source of funding, Mr. Large is brought in. Similarly, if a request for funds or services develops into a potential food donation, the prospect is handed to Ms. Chapman.

2.3 Regulatory Environment

The charitable sector is not regulated per se, but charities do have to be registered with Canada Revenue and Customs Agency to issue receipts for tax-deductible donations. The MFB is a registered charity. Currently receipts are only issued to individuals making cash donations.

Recent municipally regulated changes have hit the MFB hard. Perhaps the most costly is the regulation banning organic waste from the landfill. The MFB, like any other business, must separate compostable material from garbage and recyclables - a process that includes separating each and every damaged can from its unusable contents. Being a hub, the MFB generates large amounts of compostable material from the unusable food it receives - a cost that every food bank would have to absorb were it not for the MFB.

Until recently, businesses and residences had their garbage collected weekly. Since the HRM built a new landfill and struck up recycling and composting programs, businesses have had to pay extra for a service that is included for residential property tax payers. The MFB has repeatedly requested HRM remove its Commercial classification because of the growing amounts of damaged canned food it receives from manufacturers and distributors who now get to dispose of much of their damaged cans and food waste at the MFB’s expense. Rather than granting an exemption to the MFB, HRM is supposedly considering a levy on organic waste that is shipped to the MFB.

2.4 The Charitable Sector

Charities are assuming more of the burden of social programs off-loaded from the public sector while, at the same time, they are seeing reductions in government funding and increases in demand for their services. Rostami [1994] has stated that Canadian charities received $470 million or 1.4% of their revenues from business, the bulk coming from banks ($41.4 million). The food industry contributed $2.1 million to Canada’s charities. Canada’s charitable sector was estimated to have received between $34 billion and $86 billion in 1994 and is one of Canada’s fastest growing industries [handbook: Imagine, 1996].

Since few charities can boast having a stable source of funding, most spend a great deal of paid and unpaid time fund-raising, with varying degrees of success. As well as looking for increased efficiencies and economic stability, charities are faced with growing competition for the ‘donation dollar,’ especially with theatres or art galleries (the so-called ‘entertainment’ charities) that can offer something tangible in return for a donation.

Issues too are changing as the gap widens between society’s Have’s and Have-not’s. Charities are increasingly finding themselves under the media spotlight, especially as their advocacy role grows. They have had to become more business-like as pressure increases on them to perform more efficiently and utilize their volunteer hours more effectively. Also feeling the pressure are the charity’s executive and board members, who are expected to play key roles in the pursuit of fundraising and partnership opportunities. They are becoming more dynamic, professional and accountable, and they are less obviously just figureheads of the fundraising machines of old.

The result is that all charities have found themselves forced to seek innovative ways of raising both money and cause awareness. One method of fundraising that has proved successful, and at the same time controversial, is CRM. When a business and a charity work together toward long-term mutually beneficial solutions, they have a strategic social alliance (or partnership). From the point of view of both business and charity, CRM and social partnerships have grown in importance to become an important part of a modern charity’s strategic plans.

3.0 MARKETING ANALYSIS

3.1 Trends in Social Partnering

As business becomes increasingly competitive and consumers become more savvy shoppers, corporations have had to find more innovative ways to build customer loyalty. Some say the traditional marketing strategy (the four Ps) is fast proving itself to be insufficient to attract and retain loyal customers. Pringle and Thompson [1999] believe the time may have come for a fifth P - partnership - that is not part of promotion because it emphasizes the consumer rather than the product and promotion ‘pushes’ a product at a consumer, whereas partnering is said to ‘pull’ a consumer into a relationship with the brand or company

Companies are looking for more than just a fleeting lead over the competition; they are seeking a competitive advantage that is sustainable. One strategy that can differentiate a company from its competitors is the pursuit of a greater societal role within the community [Densmore, 1999]. However, the same characteristics that make the various elements of CSR viable marketing tools for both charities and corporations also make CSR vulnerable to criticisms levied at its potential for abuse [Varadarajan & Menon, 1988]. Charities have been accused of ‘sleeping with the enemy’ and companies are charged with exploitation for commercial gain.

Consumers are becoming much more socially, ethically and spiritually sensitive, and they are expecting the same from the brands they buy [Densmore, 1999]. The trend is not restricted to North America. In 1996, the propensity for consumers in five nations to switch brands based on the presence or absence of a cause was surveyed. Results showed the UK to have the highest propensity to switch at 86%, followed by the USA with 76%, Italy with 75%, Australia with 73% and Belgium with 65% [Business in the Community, 1996].

Donors and consumers are growing increasingly suspicious of the spending of charitable organizations, and are targeting the cost of their administration in particular. Some citizens believe that government money should fund charities, not individual donors, and some consumers have attempted to justify their participation in government-run national or provincial lotteries by calling it a ‘donation’ to charity.

Increasingly, advertisers are targeting consumers on multiple levels in order to gain their trust and loyalty. Advertisers, through their output, are attempting to take consumers from functional (satisfying a basic need), through emotional (appealing to the heart) to spiritual (appealing to the mind) participants, and from being consumers (satisfying a basic need) to being believers (forming a personal relationship).

Some experts expect the growing shift toward electronic commerce to have only minimal effect on CSR from the point of view of consumers. If anything, the ease by which consumers will be able to compare both products and charities during the purchase process will make it easier for consumers to make a purchasing decision. Charities, on the other hand, will likely have to jump on the CSR bandwagon or face being left behind: the rewards may be great, the successes many and the failures could be spectacular and well-publicized.

3.1.1 The Outlook for Social Partnering

In the face of ‘dis-intermediation’ (cutting out the middle-man, also known as direct sales), e-retailers will probably have to adopt CRM as a means of differentiation and increasing market share, just as consumers turn from being ‘couch potatoes’ into increasingly knowledgeable Internet savvy ‘couch commandos’ [Pringle & Thompson, 1999]. CSR will probably be just as important in the global village as it is in North America at present. As long as there are competing businesses making products or delivering services to customers, there will be a need for CRM and social partnerships for the added value they can provide.

A social partnership is a logical step for a company to take, because it maximizes marketing and communications department’s budgets while achieving both their objectives and more. Charities can use some of their assets - particularly their name and their reputation - to leverage additional resources from, and with the help of, a partner, one of whose partnership objectives is to see the charity succeed. Social partnerships appear to work for consumers because consumers see their purchase doing more than just satisfying an individual need or want. A social partnership brings together a charity, a business and a consumer in a win:win:win situation.

3.2 Risk

Partnerships can be risky ventures. Weak, unequal or inappropriate partnerships can prove devastating to either or both partners, but a successful partnership can provide a win-win-win solution to a complex problem. Businesses have been accused of having taken advantage of their charity partners by undervaluing them and by placing profit before altruism.

Other critics say that charities are handicapped by their ‘wait-and-see’ attitude; that they are not being proactive, and they are setting themselves up, if not for failure, then for an unbalanced, unequal partnership [Webb & Mohr, 1998]. However, charities that have taken the first step toward partnership are mostly seen by consumers to be proactive, business-like and intent on making the partnership a success. All but a few of the charities mentioned in this study felt that the potential rewards from partnering were sufficiently great to invest the time, effort and risk.

Another element of risk that must be considered is the potential for damage of the charity’s name and reputation: they are its strategic competitive advantage. Though the ideal is for all partners in a social partnership to ‘win,’ one study determined that in an unsuccessful or inappropriate partnership, it was the company rather than the non-profit that was more often the target of negative consumer affective and behavioural responses (‘bad-mouthing’ and boycotting, for example) [Dahl & Lavack, 1995]. The authors claim such a response is because individuals are more forgiving of charities than companies and are more willing to believe the corporation was trying to exploit the charity.

3.2.1 Consumer Behaviour

A study by Ross et al [1992] indicated that most people believe CRM is a good way to raise money for social causes. The reason, it has been said that, is that in their search for self-actualization, baby boomers are increasingly often discriminating between brands of similar quality based on environmental and social concerns, and that their anger toward blatant consumerism has been vented in part by adopting CRM and partnering programs [Macchiette & Roy, 1994]. The inference here is that social partnering will increase in popularity because consumers believe more in the affiliated cause than the product, and those causes that are the flavour of the moment will likely be the ones to reap the rewards.

Not surprisingly, consumers’ perceptions of CSR can influence their beliefs about and attitudes toward a new product launched by a familiar company [Ptacek & Salazar, 1997]. A new product that was launched nation-wide achieved higher sales in those states where the product had a cause affiliated with it. Many consumers appear to regard partnership participation as an indication that the company is willing to ‘give back to society.’ Many firms balk at the cost of being a good corporate citizen. Consumers would rather see a larger corporate donation to a charity than a smaller donation. However, research indicates that, to most consumers, a commensurate increase in product cost is an acceptable way of making that donation larger [Dahl & Lavack, 1995].

Consumers who expressed scepticism of tactical CRM and distrust of corporations that engage in tactical CRM were much less critical of longer-term social partnerships because the relationship had already shown itself to be mutually beneficial. Short-term schemes make it look like the business is ‘cashing in’ on the charity.

Charities should be able to use these arguments to leverage larger donations or longer contracts from their business partners.

3.2.2 The Competition

Most charities’ goals are very similar: image enhancement, awareness and education, relationship building, loyalty and, of course, revenue generation [Adkins, 1999]. Advocacy is playing an increasingly important role, particularly with charities in the social and environmental sectors. Partnering can help a charity to broaden its funding base, its volunteer network and its network of business contacts. social partnerships can also help improve a charity’s business skills and customer service, thereby helping the charity become more efficient [handbook: Imagine, 1996].

Social partnerships are relatively new, but they are catching on - CRM has become the fastest growing form of marketing in North America today: from $100 million in 1989 [Zbar, 1993] to an estimated $535 million in 1998 [editorial, Marketing News, 1999]. For charities used to appealing to a company’s Public Affairs department for cash, social partnerships are a new source of donation dollars: marketing department budgets are, on average, eight times larger than community affairs/public relations budgets [Adkins, 1999]. Those charities that are successful in the world of social partnerships are having to think like marketers. They do their homework thoroughly, they make the partnership look very rewarding to the company and they do it at minimum cost to themselves.

Charities are increasingly turning to CRM and social partnerships as the most cost-effective method of achieving their goals with the least amount of risk.

3.2.3 Risk Assessment

Risk is usually measured in terms of cost. For charities, time and effort - of staff and volunteers -are often the greatest cost. An efficient fundraising program has a higher input (dollars or cans of food) compared to its output (hours of staff/volunteer time). An effective program is one where most of the time, effort and dollars are expended by someone other than the charity and the rewards for the charity are substantial.

Risk should also be measured in terms of lost opportunity cost - the amount of funds forgone by not participating. With the CRM pie valued at an estimated $535 million, many charities will consider the rewards well worth the risk.

Most charities that have participated on social partnerships have concluded that the potential rewards considerably outweigh the risk of not participating or of participating in an unsuccessful social partnership.

3.3 Profile of the Ideal Social Partnership

Determining the profile of the ideal social partnership for the MFB requires knowing how partnerships in general work [Appendix C2], studying examples of social and business-to-business partnerships [Appendix C3], and talking to people with experience of successful social partnerships [Appendix D].

In all aspects, a social partnership needs to consider the same criteria for success as does a business-to-business partnership, such as commitment and respect for stakeholders’ values, but a social partnership also requires from each partner:

• integrity: an honest, ethical behaviour is required;
• transparency: truthfulness and openness in all aspects is a fundamental requirement. Half-truths, evasion or deceit will cause a partnership to founder;
• sincerity: research indicates that most consumers readily accept mutually beneficial relationships between causes and business, and reject firms whom they suspected of jumping on the bandwagon of a cause. The motivations must be sincere;
• mutual respect: a partner, by definition, has intrinsic value and this value needs to be respected, appreciated and rewarded;
• ‘jointness’: risks and benefits should be understood and shared equitably in a partnership where each partners is seeking its own and joint objectives; and
• mutual benefit: the more a relationship meets the needs of the partners, the stronger and more sustainable it will be [Business in the Community, 1998].

For a small charity such as the MFB, commitment can be demonstrated by a long-term contract and allocating one particular qualified staff member to the development and to oversee the administration of the partnership. The charity’s values must ‘fit’ with those of the business partner. Special attention should be given to the additional stakeholders a charity brings to the table. Key members of each side must get to know each other’s values and organization. Frequent contact is essential. Evaluation should be on-going, and measurable if it cost-effective to do so. In summary, a social partnership needs:

• commitment to benefit the partnership, society and each other’s common goals;
• respect of each other’s values and the values of each other’s stakeholders;
• a need to add value, preferably measurable, to the relationship;
• frequent communication and on-going reviews.

The ideal social partnership will be with a business partner whose values match those of the MFB and whose product(s) or service(s) meet the needs of the MFB. Partners are open with each other and committed to achieving shared goals through collaboration and dialogue. Partnerships require honesty, understanding and some flexibility.

The difference between a business partner in a strategic social partnership and a sponsor or a CRM partner is the level of commitment: in a strategic social partnership the business partner will be committed for a longer term, usually a period exceeding three years.

3.5.1 Business Sectors of Interest

The MFB is in the business of food distribution. Without a means of distribution the MFB cannot collect or deliver the food. It should approach vehicle manufacturers, dealers, rental companies and automotive servicing firms. Without appropriate warehouse facilities the MFB cannot store and sort the food.

3.6 Sobeys Inc. - A Prospective Business Partner?

As the Vice-President of Public Affairs and Communications for Sobeys Inc., a member of the Board of Directors of the Sobeys Foundation and Chair of its Donations Committee, Mr. John Keizer was able to offer some unique insights into the mechanics of CRM, sponsorships and social partnerships.

Sobeys refers to CSR as ‘corporate giving.’ One-time only gifts and large expressions of corporate philanthropy are administered by the Sobeys Foundation whereas event and cause marketing are administered by the company’s Event and CRM Committee (chaired by Michael Graydon, Senior Vice-President Marketing). The company is not keen on multi-year contracts, but it is willing to renew contracts annually.

In the case of CRM, Sobeys’ principal goal is "to enhance community relationships by giving back to the community," but it is also an investment - the company gets out more than it puts in. Mr. Keizer said the secondary goals included increased sales and market share, generation of customer loyalty and improving consumer perceptions.

Sobeys achieves those goals by allowing and encouraging as many of the general public as possible to share in an event. The company is particularly receptive to community and family events especially where employees can participate. In return, Sobeys wants to see substantial brand visibility and an increase in market share.

The company’s ability to support charities with financial donations is very limited: it is much more willing to provide donations of food, food-services, transport and printing services (Sobeys Inc. owns Eastern Sign-Print). Mr. Keizer stated that Sobeys would be happy to supply own-brand product for events or to volunteers. However, he suggested the in-store product promotion that works best is one that promotes a brand other that Sobeys’ own. He mentioned that Kraft Canada were usually amenable to helping food banks.

Sobeys’ charitable focus has changed recently to place greater emphasis on the wishes of the employees. When employee donations to the IWK Grace Foundation dropped from $257,000 to $47,000 in the space of one year, Sobeys’ management approached the employees to ascertain why. Mr. Keizer stated the reason was because "employees wanted a say in where their money went." Sobeys now invests primarily in education, principally because "it’s what our employees want. They have kids and many of the part-timers are kids." It also targets youth and local sports leagues "to touch on more than just the team. [Doing so] leaves a legacy." Mr. Keizer said that Sobeys helps food banks by transporting damaged product to the Burnside Reclamation Centre and paying the centre a small fee to redistribute the product to the food banks.

Requests for donations are generally sent to the Sobeys Foundation. When Sobeys receives a request from a charity for a CRM-style promotion, the company first determines whether the charity or event offers a strategic fit. Then, it carefully considers the amount of mass appeal, the visibility of the Sobeys name and how many people in Sobeys’ own jurisdictions will benefit. When considering a charity’s capabilities, Sobeys takes into account the charity’s history, its experience, how much the charity is prepared to invest (usually in terms of the number of volunteers it can call upon). Interestingly, Sobeys checks if and by how much the charity is supported by the United Way. Mr. Keizer suggested that charities that received support from the United Way were less in need of assistance from Sobeys.

Mr. Keizer explained that Project CHASE (Community Help and Assistance by Sobeys Employees) is a way for individual stores’ employees to raise funds for a particular charity of their choice. Each of the 83 stores has a non-management committee that canvasses the staff in the fall to help select ‘their’ store’s charity for the next 12-month period.

Mr. Keizer expressed a willingness to engage in a program that was tied in to the Club Sobeys Card. He expressed enthusiasm about a partnership that enhanced the Sobeys name, raised the profile of the Club Sobeys Card and tied customer purchases to a non-cash donation to food banks.

Sir Dominic Cadbury, chairman of Cadbury Schweppes and founder of Business in the Community, 1999.

4.0 STRATEGY

4.1 Key Success Factors

Although the key success factors for a company and a charity will differ, it will be helpful for the MFB to know and appreciate what the other players in the equation - consumers included - consider to be important factors. These are presented in detail in Appendix C. Success means different things to different partners: knowing each other’s definition of ‘success’ can assist with the initial decision and planning processes. The founding principles, however, remain the same no matter who is involved in the partnership: mutual benefit, integrity, honesty, transparency, sincerity, and mutual respect.

The MFB needs to understand its potential partner’s market and what motivates the company and its target market. Then the MFB can adapt its pitch accordingly [Adkins, 1999]. Local causes such as the MFB has an advantage over national charities in that its name is well known. However, having a well-known name is not the same as being understood, and hence the public need to be educated of the MFB’s cause and role. It is important for the MFB to stress the positives of how the relationship can help (the end-state), rather than the negatives of the problem (the means to achieve the end) [Welsh, 1999].

A social partnership should aim to meet the business’s objectives, so the MFB should be prepared to emphasize to a prospective partner that, in the eyes of consumers, businesses associated with the MFB will be seen to have more integrity [Ptacek & Salazar, 1997]. The MFB should be able to stress that the company will appear compassionate and much more a part of society. The MFB will require strong leadership, and a thorough knowledge of their potential business partner’s concerns. Clearly, partners must co-operate, but they should also be willing to compromise: a sincere desire to do common good is essential [Khoury, 1993]. Charities have to be willing to adapt certain aspects of their policy and strategies to accommodate the needs of the partnership, but they should be wary of changing just to accommodate the needs of the business partner.

Many of the key success criteria for companies and charities are similar - trust, communication and familiarity of each other’s market and organization. The similarity is not wholly surprising given that being able to understand and offer what the other side wants is key to increasing value to a social partnership. If the MFB and its business partners approach the relationship with integrity, mutual respect, transparency, sincerity and mutual benefit, there is every chance a successful partnership will result.

There are a number of factors that can cause a social partnership to deteriorate or breakdown [a comprehensive review can be found in Appendix C4]. The most common include a poor strategic fit to begin with; mismatched decision-making styles; inflexibility; unrealistic expectations and a lack of confidence from the staff in either or both organizations. Exogenous factors such as mergers, catastrophes and unwanted media scrutiny can obviously undermine a relationship, so a well-prepared damage-control plan is required. A mutually-agreed exit strategy will also be required in case the social partnership is not successful.

In summary, the key success factors for a successful social partnership are:

• impact. The partnership must add value to both partners and to society. Ideally, that value should be measurable. The benefits have to be mutual or it is not a partnership. The costs have to be acceptable or the partnership is not balanced.
• strategic fit. Often there is a direct link: the charity needs the company’s products or services. Sometimes there is no obvious link but the staff or customers have chosen to support that particular cause. For example, Sobeys and education, Telus Corp. and disabled children, CIBC and breast cancer. Occasionally, the link has been put in place through a well-considered logic-chain. Dairy Queen and the Children’s Miracle Network (treats for kids); Norwich Union and St. John’s Ambulance (personal accident prevention) or Reebok and human rights (the company was accused of exploiting third world workers).
• communications. When two disparate organizations want to work together relationship management becomes critical. Frequent and open communications generate trust, which is essential to maintaining and improving a working relationship. Stakeholders, such as a charity’s donors or a company’s consumers, must be kept informed.
• commitment. A charity must be prepared to commit time and resources to making the partnership work. It must be committed to the joint objectives of the partnership. Also required is a willingness to compromise and be flexible without jeopardizing the charity’s integrity.
• vision. Both sides must know what the other wants from the partnership, where they want to go with the partnership and how far they want to go (duration of contract). Sincerity and transparency are required.

Chronologically speaking, the ‘fit’ of a partner is usually identified as the impact and vision of the partnership. However, in terms of importance, the interviewees stressed communications as being the critical factor. Without good line communications and excellent relationship management, a curve-ball can fast develop into a crisis.

One additional point that each of the interviewees mentioned was the need to use one’s network of business contacts to make that initial contact. As one interviewee put it, "‘Who you know’ will open many more doors than ‘what you know’" [the interview protocol and results are in Appendix D]

The MFB will have to carefully consider each of the above key success factors both before it enters into a social partnership and during the partnership. Equally as important, however, is the need to look at the key success factors from the company’s point of view [detailed in Appendix C3].

4.2 Alternatives

Before presenting a strategy for the MFB, it is worth restating the problem. The MFB wants to increase its donations from companies. It can do so by asking for grants or philanthropic donations (where nothing is expected in return) or it can offer companies something in return for their donations. Sponsorship is very popular and it will undoubtedly contribute a significant amount to the MFB’s coffers. The MFB could maintain the status quo and continue to use sponsorship as a means of securing donations. There are no inherent risks to maintaining the status quo, other than the fact that donations and grants are rarely guaranteed and there is more competition for donors’ donation dollars.

Sponsorship, however, tends to be short-term and often a company is approached to sponsor just one particular event, then dropped. A repeat sponsor clearly must feel some kind of bond with the MFB. That relationship could be built on to develop tactical CRM-style relationship, whereby the business partner, and perhaps its staff, become involved so that both sides can benefit from the partnership. Adopting tactical CRM as a strategy is considered low risk and the rewards should prove greater than maintaining the status quo.

The third alternative, and the next logical step, is to form long-term social partnerships with qualified companies. The amount of effort required and the risks are greater than either the first alternative or a tactical CRM strategy, but the potential rewards are considerable.

It is because the MFB has the name, reputation, human resources and willingness that the third alternative has been selected as the most suitable for the MFB to pursue.

4.3 Developing a Strategy

There are six stages to developing a social partnership strategy: planning and preparation, negotiating the partnership, the formal agreement, managing the program, communicating the program and monitoring, measuring and evaluation [Business in the Community, 1998]. Evaluation, both because of its importance and because ‘success’ is so difficult to measure, is the subject of Section 7.

4.3.1 Planning and preparing the partnership

Finding a business partner will require research, even if the process is tendered or the prospect comes recommended. The MFB should be prepared to present to the company its organizational and volunteer structure, its geographical distribution and physical assets, its existing relationships (to highlight any potential conflicts), its decision-making process and its operating and planning cycles. The MFB must be prepared to explain why it wants to pursue its goals with that particular partner. It should expect to receive a similar presentation and/or document from the company.

Defining the scope and anticipated duration of the arrangement will help determine if the company sees the partnership as a potentially short-term CRM scheme or a fully-fledged social partnership. At this stage, the charity should ascertain whether the company’s values match its own, whether there is a clear and appropriate affinity - a ‘fit.’ If the charity is satisfied with the company’s potential and its commitment to proceed, letters of commitment to work together should be exchanged, whether it is a short- or long-term relationship [Adkins, 1999].

4.3.2 Negotiating the partnership

Knowing what the charity can offer will allow each party to begin aligning objectives. At this stage, transparency and honesty are crucial because this is usually where the first conflicts arise. The charity must be clear what it will and will not permit the business partner to do with its name, logo and donor list - the charity’s reputation is at stake. Objectives should be specific, measurable and achievable. Once the company’s assets have been audited and compared to the charity’s needs, the nature of the program can be better defined. It is often only at this point that the company is able to make a decision over a short- or long-term commitment.

Having an approximate value of its name and logo in mind, the company should be first to place a dollar value on the partnership opportunity. This may seem like gamesmanship, but it is recommended to prevent the charity from falling into the common trap of undervaluing itself. The final action before the contract is drawn up is to take a holistic approach and reassess the risks of the partnership. Reactions of the various stakeholders, impact on reputation, management of logistics and financing need to be considered by both sides and agreement as to how the risks should be managed needs to be addressed. The MFB would need to reassure itself that the relationship is appropriate, efficient, not damaging and not exploitative [Adkins, 1999].

4.3.3 Preparing the formal agreement

Legal advice will be required and should be sought before, after, and probably during, the drawing up of a binding document. Trustees and the charity’s Board will need to be consulted. If appropriate, the contract should include:

• prime purpose of the partnership;
• intellectual property and exclusivity rights;
• who is bound, if third parties are involved;
• donor recognition standards and how the recognition will be carried out;
• the limitations and degree of partner input into the MFB’s programs;
• how the partner may approach the MFB’s members and donors (if at all);
• roles and responsibilities;
• duration of the agreement;
• activities and timing plan;
• schedules of transfers of funding, resources and gifts in-kind;
• payment guarantees;
• update and review processes;
• whether the MFB can use the partner’s name and logo in materials and at events;
• approval processes for copy, logo and press notices;
• disclosure mechanisms and the conflict resolution process;
• opt-out terms, termination and exit strategy [Business in the Community, 1998].

Before signing an agreement any tax implications should be considered, and the advice of a lawyer and/or accountant may once again be required. Armed with all the details, a final SWOT analysis (strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats) should be carried out by both parties [handbook: Imagine, 1996].

4.3.4 Managing the Program

Even perfectly planned partnerships can fail if not implemented properly or managed well. Those responsible for the management of the plan should spend time going over the details of the activity. The needs of third parties and consumers should be factored in and leveraged if possible. Other details to consider may include an activity schedule, decision-making processes and authority, points of contact and deputies (in the absence of the lead person), success criteria and benchmarks. For each activity, the partnership team should envisage a worst-case scenario (the so-called ‘Globe and Mail test’) and prepare for it accordingly [Adkins, 1999].

4.3.5 Communicating the Program

All communications should present a balanced emphasis of the business and the cause, with special emphasis on the mutual benefits of the partnership. They must be legal, honest and truthful as well as sincere, compelling and non-patronizing. Each message should be carefully assessed for impact and scrutinized for potential damage. It is usually recommended to begin with internal communication in order to secure support from staff and volunteers before going public, though in a small charity, this may be common knowledge.

According to a survey of 1053 UK consumers, TV, at 63%, was the most effective means of communicating a company’s involvement with a cause [Business in the Community, 1996]. Package advertising (47%) was followed by in-store materials (38%), news/editorials (29%), company brochures (24%), special events (24%), a charity’s brochures (18%) and sales staff (10%). While TV advertising may indeed be the most effective means, it is also the most expensive. However, the MFB (and its potential small business partners) should be encouraged to learn that package advertising, a much cheaper communications medium, was the second most effective and represents a largely untapped opportunity for charities.

In summary, social partnerships have enormous potential to make a significant impact on the goals and objectives of both organizations and on important social issues. A well-considered strategic social partnership can demonstrate the mutual benefits that can be achieved through creative long-term relationships between businesses, charities, causes and the community.

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS and CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Conclusions

It is fair to conclude that social partnerships can be an outstanding strategy in the pursuit of a charity’s goals. Few national charities are without a corporate partner, but social partnerships are woefully under-utilized by smaller charities. This is regrettable, because social partnerships represent a good opportunity for most charities, both large and small, to maximize the potential benefits and minimize the possible risks.

Risk, however, cannot be eliminated. Social partnerships are not easy: they must be carefully planned and orchestrated in order to minimize the risks. Social partnerships are not a science: there is no magic formula for success. The key success factors are not a checklist: they were extracted from a comprehensive literature view and many hours of discussions with people experienced in partnerships. No two partnerships are the same, because people, with their different skills, values and attitudes, are involved. And where people are involved, good communication becomes absolutely essential for success.

Small or medium-sized, local businesses are ideally suited to become effective and successful partners with non-national charities because those local businesses’ names and brands are more likely to make an impact on the local community. Social partnerships at a local level will not raise the dollar amount that some nation-wide partnerships do, but the evidence suggests they will be as effective.

The MFB has all the prerequisites to make social partnering work. It has an outstanding strategic competitive advantage - a well-known name because of its respected reputation. It has the assets and infrastructure - a strong presence in Metro Halifax, its vans, excellent premises and a dynamic leader of a dedicated workforce. The large number of volunteers the MFB can call upon is a direct reflection of the amount of respect it holds in the community. The MFB has two staff members who are in a position to seek social partnerships on behalf of the MFB. To its credit, the MFB also has some limited experience of social partnerships through its links with Chrysler and the CBC.

However, the MFB has an image problem. To most people in HRM its role is mistaken or misunderstood. Its name and mission statement are slightly misleading, concentrating as they do on eliminating poverty and alleviating poverty. The MFB is in the transportation business first, and the food solicitation and distribution business second. It is not a food bank in the accepted sense of the term.

5.2 General Recommendations

It is highly recommended that the MFB pursue social partnerships to achieve increased revenue, donations and gifts in-kind. It is further recommended that the task be given to Mr. Doug Large, the MFB’s Resource Development and Communications Co-ordinator, and that a volunteer or part-time staff member be brought in to manage the MFB’s social partnerships.

It is also recommended that the MFB be willing to accept short-term business relationships (sponsorship and tactical CRM) because they can develop into lucrative longer-term social partnerships. The MFB should search its database of supporters and all of its staff, volunteers and business contacts to find potential business partners. It is recommended that the MFB contact past and present sponsors with a proposal for a longer-term relationship. It should use its own personnel and contacts to make the first contact with prospects it considers qualified.

Historically, exclusivity deals and endorsement of a brand or a company can be troublesome and it is recommended that the MFB avoid them at this early stage.

The lack of a web-site is considered a serious oversight and represents a huge missed opportunity for the MFB. The MFB already accepts telephone donations using Visa and MasterCard credit cards, so an on-line donation form and an on-line shopping cart would be very simple to set up. A charity’s web-site lends itself to CRM: one company can design the site, a second can host the site and a third can maintain the site, with each company having a link on the home page. It is recommended that the MFB break their association with PBNet of Halifax and seek tenders from companies who would be much more willing to enter into mutually beneficial partnerships with the MFB.

5.3 Recommended Partners by Sector

As a priority, it is recommended that the MFB approach businesses in the transportation industry to secure commitments of one or more additional vehicles. Businesses in the storage, food and food-service, business and media sectors should also be approached with draft proposals for partnerships.

A number of detailed sector-specific opportunities are recommended for action.

5.3.1 Transportation Opportunities

A number of excellent opportunities exist in the transportation industry for the MFB to exploit:

• Specialized transportation. The MFB requires an additional van for transporting frozen foods. However, the manufacturers and suppliers of highly specialized vans do not need to advertise - it is a niche market item. Used vans do occasionally come on the market, so the MFB could buy a used van but it is recommended that the MFB approach the users of such vans with a mutually beneficial proposal.
• Routine transportation. The MFB’s vans are essential, but they are expensive to run. Consumer items generate more advertising, so the MFB may wish to consider approaching manufacturers of station wagons where the competition between dealers is far more aggressive. A station wagon does not hold as much as a van, but if it is donated and maintained by a dealer and driven by a volunteer, only regular running costs would have to be factored in. Also, a station wagon could easily be adapted to carry hot food and an additional vehicle is another potential advertising outlet thereby creating more ‘presence’ in the community.
• Auto insurance. The home and auto insurance industry is highly competitive. Sponsoring the MFB van fleet in return for carrying advertising may appeal to one or more of the 103 brokers in Metro Halifax.
• Gasoline. The MFB presently earns a small discount on its gasoline by having a commercial account. In return for advertising space on the MFB’s vehicles, a more beneficial arrangement may be possible.
• Van rental. At peak times the MFB, facing a shortage of transportation, has been provided a free or discounted rental van. Those agencies could be acknowledged by placing large magnetic signs on the van proclaiming ‘XYZ helping the Metro Food Bank.’

5.3.2 Storage Opportunities

Lack of storage space is not routinely a problem at the MFB, but there is a growing need for specialized storage space:

• Cold storage. As with specialized vans, there are few users of large refrigerators. Existing users may be able to offer one to the MFB on permanent loan or on favourable terms. Shipping companies that use refrigerated containers may be another possible source, especially if a company had a damaged container that it was willing to donate.
• Temporary storage facilities. Companies with storage rental may be able to provide the MFB with some additional flexibility in return for being recognized. Some food, such as fresh produce from the Annapolis valley, is currently turned down because it is not cost-effective or is too time-consuming to collect it. The MFB should consider approaching storage companies in out-lying areas where a volunteer local to that area could pick-up dried food and store it at the rental location until there was sufficient to make a longer van journey worthwhile.

5.3.3 Food and Food-Service Opportunities

The MFB collects the food it requires from numerous sources. Straight donations account for the majority. However, the MFB may wish to consider giving those donors a little more value added, perhaps in the form of name recognition, in the hope of cementing a closer relationship with the donors. Other recommendations include:

• Out-of-hours food collection. Restaurants offering a buffet service and hotels hosting evening functions often have hot food left over which could be collected by a volunteer and delivered directly to, say, Hope Cottage. The generosity of those partners could also be acknowledged with advertising.
• Supermarket shopping lists. MFB flyers at the entrance of each store could list four to six MFB ‘shopping’ needs for that month. Such a list would assist and remind shoppers to select some appropriate food for the MFB to be placed in the food bank box by the store’s exit. The back of the flyer could provide a few facts on hunger and perhaps a recipe from a volunteer or a store discount. When the flyer goes home with the shopper, it reinforces the MFB in the mind of the consumer and a volunteer gets some valuable recognition.

5.3.4 Fundraising and In-kind Opportunities

The MFB has a constant need for cash donations to fund its day-to-day operations:

• On-line donation facilities. The MFB should ensure that its web-site has the capability to accept on-line donations through a secure server.
• Main sponsor. One popular strategy of securing a long-term commitment is to name an annual event after a sponsor, for example The Annual Hotel Halifax Humble Luncheon, or The Annual Courtesy Chrysler Volunteer Dinner. However, if this route is followed, the MFB must be assured of long-term commitment because named events completely preclude all other sponsors from contributing.
• Virtual volunteers. Volunteers who can support the MFB’s cause and expand its network through their computers are known as virtual volunteers. Those in Atlantic Canada, but outside Metro Halifax, may have access to an significant and untapped network of resources. They may also be used to approach businesses local to their area for donations, or they may provide a link to the MFB web-site on their own Internet home page.
• Trial-triggered donation. Although the lease arrangement with the local Chrysler dealerships is very generous, those dealers could be much more active at promoting the society’s name and cause on their premises and among the dealers’ staff and clients. New product launches and trials present an excellent opportunity for fundraising and cause awareness. Local dealerships (and not necessarily Chrysler dealers) could contribute $1 per kilometre whenever a new car is test-driven (‘Chrysler drives out hunger’);
• Sit-down restaurants. The MFB could approach some restaurants with a request for wait staff to ask customers to add two dollars to their bill for the Metro Food Bank. This could take the form of a small note from the MFB accompanying each bill which patrons complete with the amount of their donation.
• Fast-food Restaurants. The MFB could approach a local chain with a proposal to help increase their off-peak traffic, for example, 50 cents could be donated for every breakfast sold in a chain of burger restaurants (‘because every child’s day should start with breakfast’).
• Couponing. The MFB could provide coupons, available at the entrance to supermarkets or distributed by mail or in the newspapers, which could be handed to the cashier and a fixed amount (say, one dollar) would be added to the customer’s bill. The store would collect the donations and pass them on to the MFB.
• Raffle. The MFB could raffle a car, a vacation, a house or a computer and promote the suppliers of the items in return for not having to pay for the items until the winner is announced. It should be noted that a car raffle without a car on show is reported to be much less successful than a raffle with a car on show.
• Sale of personalized items. At events or on-line, the MFB could sell items displaying the MFB logo for a share of the sale price. Makers of cookery books, calendars, greetings cards, compact discs of local artists, canvas shopping bags and brown paper compost bags could consign their products to the MFB for sale.

5.3.5 Business Services Opportunities

Many of the business services the MFB uses are already free or offered at a substantial discount. The MFB should consider adding more value to those relationships by incorporating the companies in some MFB advertising. Those that respond favourably could then be approached with a partnership proposal. Some other opportunities include:

• Legal and professional services. Contracts must be drawn up for social partnerships, and a lawyer would have to be consulted. Many do pro bono work for charities, some to increase their name awareness. Those who wish to remain anonymous should have their anonymity respected.
• Utilities. Providers of essential utilities such as electricity, telephone, long distance, cellular telephone, Internet, water, garbage collection and heating oil, may be interested in offering the MFB an opportunity to form partnerships. Pig farmers who collect organic waste from a number of Halifax breweries may be persuaded to collect the MFB’s waste as well.
• Office equipment. Local providers of office equipment, stationery, equipment repairs and service agreements, telemarketing and conference facilities may be encouraged to become partners if their names and logos were included on MFB material.

5.3.6 Human Resources Opportunities

The MFB would have to dedicate more staff time to the development of successful partnerships. It is estimated that a significant impact could be made with approximately 0.4 full-time equivalents (FTE), or a dedicated part-time administrator working approximately two days per week. More time may be required initially.

• Networking. From the interviews conducted for this study, networking plays a large part in setting up meetings with potential business partners. The MFB Executive Director should consider attending more networking events, either in person or by delegating the task to a senior staff member.
• Board membership. Business partners like to be offered a seat on the board, even if it is just for a one-year term. Those who accept can bring to the table considerable knowledge of business and a wealth of business contact. Many will decline the offer, but they will still feel good about being asked and will speak very kindly of the MFB for considering them [see Appendix D]. An alternative to offering an executive position may be to establish a small number of one-year non-executive positions, such as Honorary Vice-President or Honorary Deputy Chair of Corporate Development.
• an employment or training agency could be recruited as a business partner to provide experienced staff pro bono to volunteer in the society’s office or teach the society’s staff about efficient office procedures.

5.3.7 Media and Promotion Opportunities

There are many attractive promotional opportunities that the MFB could consider. Many of them feature advertising of sponsor’s names. Such advertising need not be big bold and brash to be effective. Indeed, advertising should be tastefully and carefully designed to achieve the maximum effect. Other opportunities include:

• Mobile billboards. In Metro Halifax, at least, its vans are probably the most commonly seen manifestation of the MFB’s presence, but the MFB has made minimal use of them to display sponsors’ names and logos or to carry posters advertising events. Sponsors and partners should be encouraged to provide magnetic signs or stick-on posters for the MFB vehicles and even their own.
• TV and radio. The MFB has an excellent relationship with the local CBC radio station, but it should make a greater effort to ally with other local TV and music radio station celebrities, who can often provide an opening to the station.
• Celebrity endorsements. Partnership opportunities may be available for an affiliation with sports, theatre or media personalities to champion the cause, especially during the winter months. The MFB could a well-known Halifax Moosehead hockey player or a Saint Mary’s University Huskies’ football player to be an ambassador. Once the MFB has a ‘foot in the door,’ it may be possible to use the celebrity’s connections to leverage donations from the companies that advertise at events.
• Web-site design and hosting. The MFB should be prepared to partner with one or two of the many companies throughout Metro Halifax that offer web-site design and web-site hosting.
• Advertising and printing needs. Many companies will consider pro bono work in exchange for a small amount of recognition on a MFB poster, flyer, program, business card or letterhead.
• Promotional material. A stand-up promotional display could be donated or loaned to the MFB in return for some company name awareness at trade shows or expositions.
• Own premises. The MFB’s location on the busy Bedford Highway and near a set of stop lights offers the society a good opportunity to capture the eye of passing motorists. With six sides visible from the road (from the two adjacent buildings), and the backs of the two buildings visible from the water, there is considerable space for advertising to a relatively captive audience.
• Own uniform. Staff and volunteers on duty at events presently wear plain T-shirts in the society’s colours bearing a small MFB logo. The MFB should seek out a relationship with a sportswear company to provide small quantities of T-shirts for volunteers with a standardized front. The MFB can then offer event sponsors the opportunity to cover the cost of printing the sponsor’s logo on the back of the shirt. The shirts would be worn by the MFB volunteers and/or the sponsor’s staff.
• HelpAds. One very innovative CRM tool that the MFB should consider, known as HelpAd, utilizes spare or ‘white’ space on product packaging. For example, a bread company in the UK initially donated some packaging space on its plastic bread wrappers to the Red Cross for conveying a charitable message. With the bread company’s permission, the Red Cross subsequently approached a butter company and re-sold the space, retaining only a small part of the ad for its own message - "proceeds from this ad help the Red Cross to help people in need." The formula has been repeated (white bread and mayonnaise; tomato juice and Tabasco; gravy powder and sausages) to generate much needed revenue for the Red Cross [Pringle & Thompson, 1999]. Ben’s Bakery breads and Chris Brothers’ cold meats are one possible combination. Further details are available in Appendix C1.5.

5.3.8 Third-Party Opportunities

One ingenious way to realize even greater value from a partnership is to include a third party. Some potential opportunities include:

• Workplace donations. Admittedly ‘Casual Fridays’ do not garner large donations, but the concept may be used to some effect to build name awareness or to target a particular company. A simple lapel sticker, proclaiming for example ‘It’s Casual Friday & I’m helping to banish hunger in Metro,’ could be handed out for each donation. For companies that have a partnership arrangement with the society, Casual Friday stickers would be a simple way to reinforce the partnership through the staff. For companies that are not business partners but might want to build a reputation of compassion and caring, targeting some of the staff may be a way to begin negotiations. This method may also be a way for companies that do not ‘fit’ the MFB’s profile and for workers in government departments to assist the MFB in its objectives.
• Three-way Partnerships. Three-way partnerships can leverage more exposure and attention than a simple bilateral partnership. Often the third partner steps into an established relationship, other times they have to be gently drawn in. More effort may be required, but the rewards can be substantially greater than with only two partners. It may be possible to tie-in an auto dealer’s customers; for example, a number of Halifax Subway store owners and the owner of both Metro Swiss Chalet restaurants use Chrysler vans [interviews are discussed in more detail in Appendix D]. Sobeys suggested approaching Kraft Canada Inc. for an in-store three-way promotion. Bearing in mind that banks donate almost as much to the Canadian non-profit sector as all the other corporate sectors combined [handbook: Imagine, 1996], the MFB could approach companies that bank with the same financial institution as the MFB in a three-way partnership.
• Sporting contingency donations. The MFB should consider approaching companies that advertise at sporting events to ask for a donation contingent upon the local team scoring. Examples might include $100 per Mooseheads goal or $50 per Huskies touchdown.

5.3.9 Additional Opportunities

The Society’s Business Development and Fundraising Officer stated that receipts are only given to companies that request them. Many smaller companies may not be aware of the possible tax reductions available to businesses that donate in-kind services and products. The society should attempt to value each and every in-kind corporate donation and provide every corporate donor with a receipt.

Many businesses and market research firms use surveys to measure customer attitudes. Often the completion rate is very low. Some charities have benefited from a corporate donation whenever a customer completes a survey. There are over 20 market research firms headquartered in Halifax that could be approached.

Some companies with the best of intentions cannot commit themselves to support a charity year-round because of the cyclical nature of business. Such businesses should be approached to determine the best time of the year for their company and then ask them to be Corporate Donor of the Month for that month. The strategy could then be repeated with other companies until the calendar was filled. The van doors could perhaps be reserved for promoting Corporate Donor of the Month, and the magnetic sign changed monthly.

5.4 Recommendations for Developing a Partnership with Sobeys

In light of the suggestions made by Mr. Keizer and the information gleaned from him, it is recommended that the MFB pursue a closer relationship with Sobeys. It is recommended that the MFB concentrate primarily on proposals that include consumers and the Club Sobeys Card. If the MFB had its own Club Sobeys Card account, customers throughout HRM (with or without their own Club Sobeys Card account) could be given the opportunity by cashiers to register their purchases to the MFB’s own Club Sobeys Card account. Other possibilities include:

• a small donation could be made to the MFB for every new Club Sobeys Card account opened within a certain period
• the Project CHASE committee in each HRM Sobeys store should be approached with a proposal to adopt the MFB as that particular store’s cause for 2001.
• Sobeys should be approached to provide own-brand food and food services for high-profile events, either to feed volunteers or perhaps to sell in order to raise money. However, Sobeys has stated that it would probably be unwilling to make straight donations of food to food banks.
• the MFB should approach other food manufacturers, such as Kraft, Kellogg’s, Quaker Oats, Pillsbury and Nestle, with a proposal for a three-way social partnership in Sobeys stores.
• as the parent company of Eastern Sign-Print (tel. 429-8580), the MFB should approach Sobeys for some of its printing needs in return for some brand exposure.

In conclusion, the MFB is considered to be well-positioned to take advantage of the many opportunities available to it, the majority of which are nil- or low-cost options.

While most of the recommendations are related to promotion and advertising, the key to most of those recommendations is the MFB’s transport. The four vans offer potential partners and sponsors the best use of advertising space. It is recommended that the MFB’s vehicles be treated like small billboards to promote the MFB’s name, its cause and the good work its supporters do for the MFB.

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION

6.1 Designing the Implementation Plan

The implementation plan is relatively simple and straightforward. It considers the immediate preparatory actions that must be undertaken before moving on to those actions required to establish a partnership. The third and final part of the implementation plan considers the actions required to manage a social partnership and, as such, is chronological rather than date-or time-specific.

6.1.1 0 - 2 Months

A working group of staff and trusted long-time volunteers should be formed to oversee the initial preparations. A senior staff member should lead this group. The MFB should consider including an ‘honest broker’ from another charity who has some experience of formulating partnerships. The working group must first have a clear statement of the MFB’s mission and goals, and a general idea of what the MFB wants from a partnership; it is not usually necessary to know at this early stage the details as these will likely emerge over time. The group should prepare a detailed audit of the MFB to identify what products and services the MFB needs and what it can offer potential business partners. The group should conduct a detailed risk assessment and then compile a list of potential business sectors to target. Staff, volunteers and, if possible, donors should be canvassed to find out if they have any contacts in the target business sectors. An individual (or small team) should be identified as the MFB partnership co-ordinator(s).

6.1.2 3 - 6 Months

Armed with a list of business sectors, individual businesses and business contacts, the team can begin its work researching potential partners, preparing the proposal and a presentation. The MFB’s Executive Director will likely give the presentation. If both sides are willing, the negotiations should begin. As the company’s strengths and assets become clear a value should be placed on the relationship. Staff feedback should be analyzed and changes incorporated if necessary. Once the joint partnership objectives have been determined and the terms are agreed, a contract should be prepared for each side’s lawyers to review. A second risk assessment is required before the contract is signed. After, the teams meet to begin laying down the detailed plan. Once the executives of both sides approve the plan, and all reassured, the program can begin.

6.1.3 Once the Partnership is Established

Partnerships are usually launched internally to the organizations before they are launched publicly. Frequent communication is required between the teams and within the organizations. Monitoring should begin within the first few weeks and progress reports should be distributed within and beyond the organizations highlighting any minor achievements or star performers. Inevitably there will be some minor problems to iron out and these should be addressed sooner rather than later.

Each quarter, assuming there have been no crises, the teams should conduct an interim evaluation of the progress made thus far, with a more detailed evaluation and presentation conducted yearly.

7.0 EVALUATION

7.1 Evaluation from the MFB’s Perspective

Given objectives like increasing brand or cause awareness that are difficult and expensive to measure and that are influenced by a host of other variables, ‘success’ is understandably difficult to evaluate, especially for cash-strapped smaller businesses and charities. Monitoring and evaluation are essential to maintaining and refining a good social partnership. At its simplest, monitoring can take the form of a simple weekly telephone call.

There is general agreement that partnerships cannot be evaluated without benchmarking and a logical benchmark is the pre-partnership state. Complicating matters is the possibility of existing partnerships, multiple partnerships and additional players, which can adversely or positively affect the benchmark state. Some evaluation indicators are specific to the different stakeholder groups while others can be used by all.

It will be relatively easy for the MFB to measure one particular aspect of success of a partnership - it can count the number of dollars raised or the amount of food donated. However, businesses have more difficulty attributing the increases of a measurement parameter to their partnership program because their chief objectives are often intangibles, such as brand awareness. Most charities are concerned about intangibles such as donor attitude, public awareness and impact on society [Adkins, 1999], but measurement of these indicators is probably beyond the reach of the MFB.

It was interesting to note from the interviews that one side automatically considered the other in measuring the success of the partnership from their organization’s point of view [see Appendix D]. The charities considered a partnership ‘successful’ when the business partner was pleased with, for example, the increased exposure they got. The interviewees used phrases like "if they walked away happy, we were happy" and "when they got their goals, we knew they’d be back next year." Business partners tended to look at the success indicator that was easiest to measure - the amount of money raised by the charity. However, it is not the only measure of success.

Media coverage has been touted as an excellent social partnership evaluation indicator. It is recommended that the MFB measures the amount of free media exposure the partnership gets (column inches, seconds of TV or radio, web-site hits), as well as any increase in the number of telephone phone calls or personal inquiries received. Such figures can be readily converted into an equivalent dollar value [Business in the Community, 1998]. Further information on evaluation and media measurement is in Appendix C5.

Evaluation is core to the future potential and development of social partnering. Without clearly setting and measuring performance against objectives, the decision on whether or not to continue a program is very difficult to make. Media monitoring, resources donated and funds raised are likely to be the most frequently used performance indicators. Societal impact, consumer attitudes and customer satisfaction can be measured at a cost and may be best left to the company to pursue and pay for. The MFB has the resources on hand to conduct routine monitoring of media coverage, revenue and food donations, but even occasional attitudinal surveys may well be beyond its reach.

Raising revenue and increasing consumer awareness are the most common goals in a partnership. Measuring the funds raised or the increase in sales is only one indicator of a successful social partnership. Measuring awareness by surveys can be expensive, but a cheaper, easier alternative is to measure the amount of media coverage a partnership gets.

REFERENCES

Adkins, S. (1999), Cause Related Marketing, Butterworth Heinemann Publishers, Oxford, 1999.

Adkins, S. (1999a), The wider benefits of backing a good cause. Marketing, p20, 2 Sept 1999.

Adler, L. (1966), Symbiotic Marketing, Harvard Business Review, 44 (6), 59.

Allen, J.H. (1995), Properly implemented, it can generate new cash, Canadian FundRaiser, , 27 May 1995.

Anderson, P. (1999), Give and take, Marketing Week, 22 (30), 39.

Benezra, K. (1996), Cause & effects marketing, Brandweek, p38, 22 Apr 1996.

Bird, J. (1998), Champions of the cause, Marketing, p25, 18 Jun 1998.

Bradshaw, N. (1997), Assess your organization’s level of social responsibility, Canadian FundRaiser, 4 Jun 1997.

Business in the Community (1996), The Winning Game, Business in the Community, London, 1996.

Business in the Community (1998), The Corporate Survey II, Business in the Community, London, 1998.

Business in the Community (1998a), CRM Guidelines - towards excellence, Business in the Community, 1998.

Cebrzynski, G. (1998), Good neighbor’s policy fits into latest marketing strategies, Nation’s Restaurant News, 32 (9), 38.

Cheary, N. (1997), The limits of affinity, Marketing Week, 20 (20), 26.

Cogill, J.H. (1991), Sponsorships & corporate contributions, Canadian Business Review, p16, Autumn 1991.

Colford, S.W. (1994), Jeans giveaway labeled a poor fit, Advertising Age, p12, 16 May 1994.

Cone, C. (1999), The evolution of cause branding: 1999 Cone/Roper Cause Trends Report, www.conenet.com/website/crm/report.htm, 1999.

Cordtz, D. (1990), Corporate citizenship: no more soft touches, Financial World, 159 (11), 30.

Creyer, E.H. & Ross Jr, W.T. (1996), The impact of corporate behavior on perceived product value, Marketing Letters, 7 (2), 173.

Dahl, D.W. & Lavack, A.M. (1995), CRM: impact of size of cause-related promotion on consumer perceptions and participation, AMA Educators Conference: Marketing Theory and Applications, Winter 1995.

Densmore, C. (1999), Collective chic, Brandweek, 40 (16), 32.

Diageo Annual Review (1999), Diageo plc, www.diageo.com/ccdiageo/forward/, Sep 99

Doz, Y.L. & Hamel, G. (1998), Alliance Advantage, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998.

editorial: Hemispheres Magazine (1997), Better to give and to receive, Hemispheres (United Airlines) Magazine, Jan 1997.

editorial: Marketing (1998), A cautionary tale from the US, Marketing, p37, 26 Mar 1998.

editorial: Marketing Week (1998), CRM seen as cynical in wake of Diana tragedy, Marketing Week, 20 (45), 10.

editorial: Nonprofit World (1998), When does CRM work best, Nonprofit World, 16 (5), 55, September-October 1998.

Esterson, E. (1997), CM: enlightened business or a publicity stunt?, Natural Foods Merchandiser, www.nfm-online/nfm_backs/Apr_97/cause_marketing.html, Apr 1997.

File, K.M. & Prince, R.A. (1998), CRM and corporate philanthropy in the privately held enterprise, Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (14), 1529.

Fine, S.H. (1992), Marketing the public sector: promoting the causes of Public and Nonprofit Agencies, Transaction Publishers, New Jersey, 1992.

Fogarty, T.A. (1997), Corporations use causes for effect: Charity tie-ins show results for marketers, USA Today, B7, 11 Oct 1997.

Gaines, C. (1998), Next step is CM: businesses start own nonprofits, Marketing News, 32 (21), 4.

Garfield, B. (1999), Manipulative pitch leaves a sour taste, Advertising Age, 26 Jul 1999.

Garrett, J. & Rochlin, L. (1997), CM has own rules of courtship, Washington Business Journal, 7 Apr 1997.

Garrison, J.R. (1990), A new twist to cause marketing, Fund Raising Management, 20 (12), 40.

Halfpenny, K., Handyside, A., Mailman, S. & Purkayastha, S. (1999), Who Cares Wins - when a charity selects a business partner to form a successful strategic social alliance, unpublished paper from course MBA 697.1, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, 22 Nov 1999.

handbook: Imagine (1996), Creating effective partnerships with Business - a Guide for Nonprofits in Canada, Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, Toronto, 1996.

Holmes, J.H. & Kilbane, C.J. (1993), Selected effects of price and charitable donations, Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 1 (4), 67.

Howard, T. (1997), Charitable promos can be profitable market strategy, Nation’s Restaurant News, 31 (23), 18.

interview: Keizer (2000), personal interview with John Keizer of Sobeys Inc., 23 Mar 2000.

Khoury, G.M. (1993), From patrons to partners: strategies for the 90’s, Canadian Business Review, p26, Summer 1993.

Kotler, P. & Roberto, E.L. (1989), Social Marketing, The Free Press, New York, 1989.

Larson, J. (1995), Sweet charity, American Demographics, May 1995.

Macchiette, B. & Roy, A. (1994), Sensitive groups & social issues: are you marketing correct?, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11 (4), 55.

McCarthy, M. (1999), Generous helping: social entrepreneurs, Canadian FundRaiser, 28 Jun 1999.

Metro Food Bank Society Mission Statement, 1999.

Mitchell, A. (1999), Business pays the price for having a conscience, Marketing Week, 21 (41), 38.

Moss Kanter, R. (1999), When Giants Learn to Dance, HarperCollins Canada Limited, Toronto, 1999.

Mullen, J. (1997), Performance-based corporate philanthropy: How "giving smart" can further corporate goals, Public Relations Quarterly, 42 (2), 42.

Murphy, C. (1999), Brand values can build on charity ties, Marketing, p41, 25 Mar 1999.

Nevin-Gattle, K. (1996), Predicting the philanthropic response of corps: lessons from history, Business Horizons, 39 (3),15.

Paul, K. & Lyndenberg, S.D. (1992), Applications of corporate social monitoring systems: types, dimensions and goals, Journal of Business Ethics, 1 (11), 1992.

Pringle, H. & Thompson, M. (1999), Brand Spirit, Wiley Publishers, Chichester, 1999.

Ptacek, J.J. & Salazar, G. (1997), Enlightened self-interest: selling business on the benefits of CRM, Nonprofit World, 15 (4), 9.

Rackham, N., Friedman, L. & Ruff, R. (1996), Getting Partnering Right, McGraw-Hill Publishers, New York, 1996.

report: Canadian FundRaiser, (1994) Eight trends in corporate philanthropy, www.charityvillage.com/charityvillage/research/rcp6.html, 31Oct 1994.

report: Marketing News (1999), CM? Minnesota’s attorney general doesn’t think so, Marketing News, 33 (10), 21.

report: National Committee for Economic Development (1971), Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations, National Committee for Economic Development, 1971.

Richards, A. (1998), New era for cause link-ups, Marketing, p14, 4 Sep 1998.

Ross, J.K., Patterson, L. & Stutts, M.A. (1992), Consumer perceptions of organizations that use CRM, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20 (1), 93.

Rostami, J. (1995), Corporate Communirt Investment in Canada, 1994 Survey Results, The Conference Board of Canada, 1995.

Schiller, Z. (1988), Doing well by doing good, Brandweek, p53, 5 Dec 1988.

Sharpe, D. (1994), Portrait of Canada’s Charities: the Size, Scope and Financing of Registered Charities, Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, Toronto, 1994.

Smith, C. (1994), The new corporate philanthropy (integrating social initiatives), Harvard Business Review, 72 (3), 105.

Smith, M.F. & Mendis, P. (1994), Should corporations be charitable? (point/counter-point), Business & Society Review, 89 (1), 19.

Smith, S.M. & Alcorn, D.S. (1991), CM: a new direction in the marketing of corporate responsibility, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 8 (2), 19.

Stark, M. (1999), Brand aid: Cause effective, Brandweek, 40 (8), 20.

Strahilevitz, M. & Myers, J.G. (1998), Donations to charity as purchase incentives: how well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell, Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 43.

Varadarajan, P.R. & Menon, A. (1988), CRM: a coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy, Journal of Marketing, 52 (7), 58.

Warner, I. (1997), Art of Fund Raising (from an article by van Voorst, B.), The New World of Giving, Time, 5 May 1997.

Webb, D.J. & Mohr, L.A. (1998), A typology of consumer responses to CRM: from skeptics to socially concerned, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17 (2), 226.

Weisbrod, B.A. (1999), Non-profits need assist to avoid commercialism, San Francisco Chronicle, 14 Jun 1999.

Welsh, J.C. (1999), Good cause, good business, Harvard Business Review, 77 (5), 21.

Zbar, J.D. (1993), Environmental marketing, Advertising Age, pS1, 28 Jun 1993.