Background
The goal of this research was to seek out the potentiality of partnerships between women's organizations and institutions. This implied exploring both women's organizations' and institutions' expectations of partnerships. Thus, we conducted a survey of 266 institutions to find out about institutional past and present partnerships and the possibility for future partnerships with women's organizations.
These 266 institutions were selected on the basis of diversity, potential interest in supporting violence against women prevention projects, and ethical considerations. In order to represent the range of institutions in our society and examine their interests, their expectations, and their criteria for selecting their partners, we included small community businesses, big corporations, services clubs, labour unions, and credit unions located across Canada.
Fifty-six institutions selected for this research project are big corporations. Some of these institutions were selected from the Imagine Caring Companies list of January 1998 list by 3 representatives of 3 different participating women's organizations. These institutions donate a minimum of 1% of their average domestic pre-tax profits to charitable and non-profit organizations. Others were selected from the Clean Environment Balanced Fund Members, the Clean Environment Equity Fund, the Clean Environment Income Fund, the Clean Environment International Equity Fund, the Dynamic Global Green Fund, the Ethical Balanced Fund, the Ethical Growth Fund, the North American Ethical Fund, and the Ethical Special Equity Fund. These institutions were chosen on the basis that they were corporations who were interested in supporting non-profit organizations and therefore with whom women's organizations may consider partnering.
Fifty institutions were selected on the basis that they are women-owned businesses or institutions with female top management. These institutions were chosen from Who's Who of Canadian Women (1997), and from the online directory Canadian Women's Business Network, British Columbia Women's Connection.
Fifty-three institutions were selected from the Gay Guide Canada which features lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and transsexual friendly resources across Canada. The institutions selected from this list were chosen on the basis that they are local businesses to British Columbia and may be interested in partnering with women's organizations.
Twenty-one small community businesses were selected from The Book of Lists, A supplement to Business in Vancouver (1997, issue 410A), and the Burnaby B.O.A.R.D. (Business Organization Administration Resource Directory, 1995-1997).
Fourteen institutions were chosen on the basis that they are environmental and local health businesses. These institutions were selected from advertisements in Spoken Word (Spring/Summer 1998, Vol. 7, Issue 1), a magazine published by Better environmentally Sound Transportation, and from the Directory of Organic Wholesalers of British Columbia (1997).
Twenty service clubs including Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, and Kiwanis Clubs were selected from a list of Credit Unions of British Columbia, given to us by Credit Union Central of BC.
Seventeen labour unions were selected from the British Columbia Labour Directory (1997).
Twelve employee trusts were selected from the Rainforest Employee Trust Publication (1997).
Overview
Seventeen institutions out of 266 sent back a written response to our request for information about their partnerships and about the potentiality of developing future partnerships with women's organizations. Six of these 17 respondents filled out our questionnaire. Four out of these six institutions are local institutions who have already been involved in partnerships with women's organizations. The other two institutions are big corporations based in Ontario and Quebec. Eleven others institutions sent us a letter explaining they did not want to participate in this research due to the strategic nature of the information and because they were already engaged with other non-profit organizations. The rest (93.6%) did not respond in any way.(1)
I - Past and present partnerships
Three of the six respondents who filled out the questionnaire had initiated their past and present partnerships through personal contact with non-profit organizations. Two others were approached by a non-profit organization, and one indicated approaching a non-profit organization.
The forms of recognition
The six responding institutions have past and/or present partnerships. Five indicated that they were publicly recognized by their non-profit partners for their support. Three were issued a charitable receipt for their contribution, three others received an evaluation report, and two also received recognition in the non-profit organization's annual report, brochure, and/or newsletter.
| Recognition in annual report, brochure, newsletter |
2 |
| Public recognition |
5 |
| Charitable receipt |
3 |
| Evaluation report |
3 |
The types of partnerships
In their past and present partnerships, four of the surveyed institutions sponsored a non-profit organization. One of these four sponsorships was described by the institution as a cause-related marketing strategy. The other three partnerships involved services in-kind, company in-house services (i.e., photocopy, printing, distributing), advice and counselling services, matching gifts, pledges, bulk ordering, use of company facilities and company name, and community investments.
| Sponsorship |
4 |
Advice and counsel |
2 |
| Bulk ordering |
2 |
Use of company name |
3 |
| Service-in-kind |
2 |
Institution matching gifts |
1 |
| Company facilities |
1 |
Community investments |
1 |
| Company in-house service |
2 |
Cause-related marketing |
2 |
| Pledges |
1 |
Institutions' involvement
Three institutions indicated that they were involved in their partnership from the beginning, including developing the goals and objectives of the project. One of these two partnerships involved a daily 5% donation from the sales of the institution's products. Another institution reported not being directly involved other than providing funding, and requesting a final report from their partner. A third institution indicated having an advisory panel which worked together with the non-profit on the development of the partnership.
The benefits received from present and past partnerships
Two institutions indicated that one of most important benefits they had received in their partnership was a form of recognition from their partner and from the community. One of the two institutions added that it had also gained knowledge about how to develop a partnership. Five institutions indicated that they found the recognition they were given for their support satisfactory.
II - Future partnerships
Four institutions clearly indicated an interest in partnering with women's organizations.
Forms of support
Depending on their resources, institutions that are interested in partnering with women's organizations are willing to provide a variety of cash donations and non-cash donations including the following:
Cash donations
| One-time contribution | 2 | Cause-related marketing | 1 |
| Loan | 1 | Special events | 2 |
| Endowment (supporting long-term programs) | 1 | Other | 1 |
| Employee matching gifts | 1 |
Non-Cash donations
| Gifts-in-kind | 3 | In-house services | 3 |
| Senior management | 1 | Special events | 2 |
| Company facilities | 3 | Advice and counsel | 4 |
| Bulk ordering | 1 |
Activities and needs that institutions would be interested in supporting
Together six institutions' interests and resources cover a wide range of women's organizations' activities and needs. They have shown an interest in supporting advocacy, public education, research, training and education internal to women's organizations, employment and housing initiatives, and non-profit sustainability projects.
| Advocacy and public education | 2 |
| Research on violence against women | 2 |
| Training and education internal to women's organizations | 2 |
| Employment initiatives | 1 |
| Housing initiatives | 1 |
| Non-profit sustainability projects | 1 |
One institution has established guidelines by which it chooses to partner with a non-profit organization. Three others do not have any guidelines or procedures determining with whom they can partner.
Institutions' type of giving practices, and how they want to be approached
The type of giving practices of institutions, and the way they would like to be approached in regard to forming partnerships vary as follows:
| Once a year |
1 |
| Institution choose from proposals |
1 |
| Depending on the institutions' other activities |
1 |
| Fixed giving interests |
1 |
| Depending on the activities of the nonprofit organization |
1 |
| Initial contact by telephone |
5 |
| A meeting |
3 |
| A formal proposal |
3 |
| In writing only - no calls |
2 |
| By filling in the institution's application |
3 |
How institutions rate their partnerships with non-profit organizations
All six responding institutions indicated that it is very important to them that the non-profit organization with whom they would consider partnering:
Five institutions indicated that is was also important that the non-profit organization with whom they would consider partnering:
As the following table shows, the responding institutions' expectations of their non-profit organization partners varies:
| Statements
The non-profit organization:
(1 is the most important and 4 the least important) |
Degree of importance | |||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Has a mission your institution can truly commit itself to | 6 | |||
| Has strong strategic planning & fiscal management | 2 | |||
| Has clearly articulated goals and objectives | 6 | |||
| Allows your institution to participate in the decision-making process | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Can provide recognition that is suitable to your institution's needs | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| Can show the difference they make in the community | 5 | |||
| Can offer access to networks, contacts, members | 1 | 2 | 4 | |
| Can promise anonymity | 2 | 4 | ||
| Can offer exclusivity, so that your institution can be unique among your competitors | 1 | 4 | ||
| Is willing to develop a long-term relationship with its institutional partner | 2 | 3 | 1 | |
| Can place logo on printed materials for program, project, or the service funded | 5 | 1 | ||
| Can invite its institutional partner to its annual general meetings | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| The request for support: | ||||
| Must show creativity, uniqueness and lateral thinking | 2 | 3 | 1 | |
| Involves employee/member participation | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| Your institution would support a non-profit or charitable organization: | ||||
| Solely for altruistic reasons | 2 | 1 | 5 | |
| To enhance your image - a high profile, stature and credibility | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| To enhance your institution's image with your employees | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| To enhance your institution's image with your customers | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| To enhance your institution's image with your potential customers | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| To raise public awareness of the social issues championed by women's organizations | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Institutions' portraits
Three of the 5 institutions that responded to this question offer a range of benefits and services to their employees and practice several equity policies. Institutions were asked to identify their position on various ethical issues. The following table illustrates their responses.
| Surveyed institutions' status | Yes | No | N/A |
| Have a predominantly (50%) masculine management |
2 |
1 |
2 |
| Have a unionized workplace |
3 |
1 |
1 |
| Allow flexible working hours |
1 |
1 |
2 |
| Practice wage equity |
4 |
||
| Practice employment equity |
4 |
||
| Have medical/dental plans |
4 |
||
| Provide maternity or parental leave |
4 |
||
| Provide same sex benefits |
3 |
||
| Have harassment policy |
5 |
||
| Have employee training programs |
5 |
||
| Have an ergonomic workplace |
4 |
||
| Have a recycling program |
5 |
||
| Have an employee volunteer program |
2 |
1 |
2 |
| Practice product safety standards |
3 |
2 | |
| Surveyed institutions' status | Yes | No | N/A |
| Practice/distribute products that are biodegradable |
1 |
4 | |
| Any involvement in producing nuclear energy |
2 |
3 | |
| Any involvement testing products on animals |
2 |
3 | |
| Any involvement irradiating food or use pesticides |
2 |
3 | |
| Produce pharmaceutical |
1 |
2 |
3 |
| Produce/distribute arms/weapons |
2 |
3 | |
| Operate maquilladoras |
2 |
3 | |
| Any involvement in export processing zones |
2 |
3 |
Type of women's organizations institutions might be interested in partnering with:
Three institutions out of 6 that returned our questionnaire indicated that they would only partner with women's organizations that had a charitable status and could issue tax receipts. Four institutions indicated that they would partner with women's organizations that had a non-profit organization status. Two institutions indicated that they would partner with ad-hoc women's groups.
Summary
Among 266 institutions, 17 responded to our request for information about their past and present partnerships and the potential for developing future partnerships with women's organizations. Of the 17 that responded to our request, 11 sent us a letter stating that they were already involved in partnerships with other non-profit organizations, and therefore regretted not being able to participate in our research project. However, 6 institutions did answer our questions.(3)
According to the results of the survey, sponsorship is the most common form of partnership among the 6 institutions who participated in our survey. In return for their support, they were publicly recognized by their non-profit partner and received a charitable receipt and/or an evaluation report. In most past and present partnerships, these institutions have been involved, from the beginning, in establishing with the non-profit organization the goals and objectives of the project.
Among the 6 institutions that answered our questions, 3 have partnered with women's organizations in the past. Four institutions have indicated having an interest in developing future partnerships with women's organizations. They also indicated that they could provide a wide range of financial goods and services, and are interested in supporting all sorts of activities and needs including advocacy, public education, research, and training and education at women's organizations.
However, it is very important to all institutions that their non-profit partner has a mission that they can truly commit to and that it has clearly defined goals and objectives. It is also very important to institutions that their support be publicly recognized by non-profits. For example, that the non-profit organization print the institution's logo on all material related to the program or project supported.
Overall, 2.3% of all the institutions solicited to participate in our research project (representing 6 institutions out of 266) have expressed a definite interest in developing partnerships with women's organizations. Unfortunately, 4.1% additional institutions (representing 11 institutions out of 266) have replied to our request for information and have declined any partnership opportunities for the moment, not excluding the possibility of future partnership. These results have been rather discouraging and yet not surprising to women's organizations.
Women's issues and violence against women prevention programs call for major social
changes. Unfortunately, it appears from the results of this research that the interest of
at least 93.6% of all institutions in this sample (representing 249 institutions out of 266)
may very well be at the antithesis of the needs of women's organizations in preventing
violence against women.
Endnotes
1. Note: The categories in the preceding and following tables are overlapping from the six
institutions that responded to our questionnaire. In other words, institutions chose to check
sometimes two or more answers to one question. The total of responses is therefore often greater than six.
2. Note: By the expression "showing the difference they make in the community," it is implied
that it is most important for institutions that their non-profit partners be willing and able to
publicly recognize the contribution that was made to them by the institution. The expression also
suggests that the difference is tangible, so that the public can see the direct result of the institution's
contribution.
3. Note: As the results of the survey have shown, six institutions have expressed interest in
partnering with women's organizations and therefore the latter may want to follow-up with these six potential partners.