By Heather Clancy
There’s some new data out this week from the Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthrophy (an organization started by the late actor Paul Newman) that suggests approximately 65 percent of businesses gave more to charitable causes in 2010, than they did in 2009. About 40 percent of those companies actually gave at least 10 percent more, according to the analysis.
Overall, the typical median amount that these companies gives away annually is $24.8 million — these are big companies, mind you. Aggregate giving levels in 2010 were up almost 18 percent, but that was really driven by a few companies, many of them pharamaceutical firms. It should be noted, that a “gift” isn’t necessarily just cash: the increase among the pharma companies, for example, was in large part driven by donated medicine.
There were 184 companies considered in the analysis, including 63 of the top 100 companies on the Fortune 500 list. The total that those companies gave away in cash and products during 2010 was more than $15 billion. Most of CECP’s analysis centers on companies that it has been following in this annual analysis since 2007.
So, why give more? The CECP says the following reasons were all cited as motivators:
•    Specific disasters, including the earthquake in Haiti and floods in Pakistan. The earthquake in Japan coupled with the weather catastrophes in the United States will doubtless keep that number high in 2011, at least I would hope so.
•    More activity planned for their “signature” philanthropic programs. These are the things more obviously tied to corporate sustainability efforts. For example, a beverage company’s grants or investments in preserving estuaries or developing programs to conserve community water resources.
•    Combined charitable budgets that might have resulted from mergers and acquisitions. This will be a close thing to watch when next year’s numbers come out, to see if those budgets are ratcheted back. Just as operational budgets are generally reduced after an M&A, I’d be willing to bet that redundant gifts would probably also be reined in.
(Source: www.smartplanet.com )