INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE PHILANTHROPHY IN SERBIA. Practice and attitudes of citizens and company representatives. december 2012.

Transcription

1 INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE PHILANTHROPHY IN SERBIA Practice and attitudes of citizens and company representatives december

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY KEY FINDINGS A. PERCEPTION OF PHILANTHROPY AND IMPORTANCE OF GIVING FOR PUBLIC GOOD B. ASSESSMENT OF PHILANTROPHY IN SERBIA C. WHAT ARE THE DONATIONS GIVEN FOR AND TO WHOM, AND WHO SHOULD THEY BE GIVEN TO AND WHAT FOR (AREAS AND TARGET GROUPS) D. WHO DONATES THE MOST AND WHICH ACTIONS AND INITIATORS OF ACTIONS ARE THE MOST NOTABLE E. ROLES OF THE STATE, COMPANIES, CIVIL SOCIETY, CITIZENS AND THE MEDIA IN THE ACTIONS FOR PUBLIC GOOD F. MOTIVES AND OBSTACLES FOR SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS IN PHILANTHROPIC ACTIONS G. PRACTICE OF INDIVIDUAL AND CORPORATE GIVING H. STRATEGIC APPROACH AND TRANSPARENCY OF COMPANY ACTIVITIES I. DONATION ENVIRONMENT J. ATTITUDE TOWARDS CS ORGANIZATIONS AND FOUNDATIONS AND COOPERATION / PARTNERSHIP WITH CSO AND CSO FOUNDATIONS K. MECHANISMS FOR GIVING L. MOST PROMINENT ACTORS AND EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE M. WHICH MESSAGE DO COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES SEND TO THE ACTORS IN THE FIELD OF PHILANTHROPY

3 INTRODUCTION Balkan Community Initiatives Fund (BCIF), with financial support of American Agency for International Development (USAID), in partnership with Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC) and in cooperation with IPSOS Strategic Marketing, has conducted quantitative and qualitative research on individual and corporative philanthropy in Serbia during November and December The results of this research are published in this report. Research is conducted with intent to identify attitudes of citizens and companies towards giving for public good, to obtain data on the most prominent stakeholders, models and practices in philanthropy, to provide insight in the areas of giving and to emphasize examples of good practices. BCIF has already conducted researches on corporative philanthropy in Serbia in 2004 and on citizens attitudes towards individual philanthropy in Serbia in 2009, so through this study it has determined shifts comparing to the results of previous researches and enabled quantitative and qualitative expansion of those results with data related to methods, techniques and mechanisms of giving, stakeholders in philanthropy, existence of strategic partnerships and examples of good practices. As coordinator of Serbian Philanthropy Forum, BCIF has used this research to get overview of philanthropic practice of Forum members and to estimate the potential of this platform for strategic development of philanthropy in Serbia. The aim of the research was to investigate citizens apprehension of the term philanthropy, attitudes towards giving for public good and areas of giving as well as attitudes and motivation of companies towards philanthropy, areas in which they give, strategic approaches, philanthropic practices and existence of strategic partnerships with civil society organizations and/or nonprofit institutions. Within this study, our wish was to identify the most prominent stakeholders in the area of philanthropy, examples of good practice, available mechanisms for giving and the most used methods and techniques of giving. Main findings point out that Serbian citizens still comprehend philanthropy as humanitarian aid and support to socially vulnerable groups and individuals, while representatives of companies, although consentient with citizens that help to endangered is the primary goal of actions for public good, pay considerably greater significance to actions contributing to the general development of communities. Both citizens and companies agree that current state in philanthropy is dissatisfying, mostly as a consequence of economic crisis and apathy in society, but they also agree that potential for development exists and that it is necessary to mobilise and stimulate both citizens and companies to participate in actions for common good, through greater engagement of media and state, changes of legal and tax framework, development of transparency standards and through providing feedback on the flow of raised funds and results of supported actions. Citizens show lack of trust towards civil society organizations and foundations, especially when it comes to managing raised funds while companies make distinction between organizations and foundations of civil society, showing more trust towards foundations, but they also express readiness to support both organizations and foundations, noting that they should first improve their work and transparency, quality of suggested actions and communication with business sector. Methodology of this study included quantitative and qualitative research of citizens and companies through questionnaires, focus groups and in-depth interviews, with comparative analysis of data gathered in previous researches. Information before you will be used for improvement of Balkan Community Initiatives Fund work in this area and for determination of action plans of Serbian Philanthropy Forum in the field of philanthropy development in Serbia. Marija Mitrović Balkan Community Initiatives Fund 3

4 METHODOLOGY QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH Citizens Target group: Citizens 18+ years Method of data collection: Face to face in respondent s household Type of sample: Three stage, stratified, random, representative sample Unit of the first phase: territory of polling place Unit of the second phase: Households (SRSWOR random walk) Unit of the third phase: Respondents within households (Kish tables) Size of sample: 1036 Sampling error: (marginal error) +/- 3.4% (Deff=1.2) Note: Survey on philanthropy on the same population (target group of citizens) was realized in 2009 as well, and based on the results of that survey this report presents changes in attitudes and practices of citizens in the area of philanthropy having taken place during the past three years. Companies Target group: The target group consists of two sets of companies: a set of companies active in the field of philanthropy, according to the records (databases) accessible to the Balkan Community Initiatives Fund - BCIF, as well as a set of companies the activities of which there are no records in the databases that were accessible to the Balkan Community Initiatives Fund. A sample of these companies was selected randomly on the basis of the Serbian Business Register Agency base for Size of population and response rate: Population Response rate Companies active in the field of philanthropy according to available BCIF records (16%) Random sample of companies registered in the Serbian Business Register Agency (16%) TOTAL (16%) Sample structure of the companies which answered the questionnaire * Practice of giving for public good minimum once a year With practice Without practice Companies active in the field of philanthropy according to available records 23 (47%) - Random sample of companies registered in the Serbian Business Register Agency (22%) 15 (31%) Giving practice Number of employees Without practice of giving minimum once a year 12 (80%) 2 (13%) 1 (7%) Practice of giving with a strategy 4 (19%) 4 (19%) 13 (62%) Practice of giving without a strategy (ad hoc) 1 (8%) 7 (54%) 5 (38%) Method of data collection: Online (CAWI) 4

5 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Objective: Better / deeper understanding of the results obtained in qualitative survey Citizens Focus groups: two focus groups, with eight participants each (one female and one male group) Target group: 28 to 55 years, with stable source of income Companies Individual interviews were realized with representatives of eight companies (four international and two domestic companies with a giving strategy and two domestic companies without a philanthropic strategy) Methodological notes: Results of the survey on companies can be considered as a valid indicator of the global picture in the area of philanthropic activities in Serbia, but in a quantitative sense (distribution of frequencies of certain practices, experiences and attitudes) definitely can not be generalized to the total number of companies in Serbia (both because the sample is too small and because of the sample selection method) For the sake of clarity and better visibility of comparisons some results are presented in percentages, even when a very small number of companies is concerned, which should be taken into account when interpreting the results. 5

6 KEY FINDINGS A. PERCEPTION OF PHILANTHROPY AND IMPORTANCE OF GIVING FOR PUBLIC GOOD Citizens of Serbia primarily perceive philanthropy as charitable aid, helping socially vulnerable groups and individuals, primarily the poor and the sick. Perception of the idea of philanthropy has not changed in comparison with The first associations of the citizens at the mentioning of donations for are also connected with humanitarian actions (helping the poor, the sick, the vulnerable, children without parental care ). In compliance with such attitude, charitable donations and charity are the expressions which are the closest to citizens when it comes to giving for public good (57% of citizens mention them as the expressions which are the closest to them and 25% by order of mentioning). Only 13% of the citizens state that the expression which is the closest to them is Care about the community. Philanthropy is a foreign term used by just 4% of citizens. Attitudes of company representatives coincide with those of citizens, that the primary importance of giving for public good is in helping vulnerable people, but, in comparison with citizens, they attach more importance to the general development of the community. Helping the vulnerable, as a primary importance of actions for public good is mentioned by 89% of citizens and 60% of companies. (Figure 1) However, there is a difference among companies in the perception of the primary importance of philanthropy, depending on their practice in this area. Namely, companies which do not have philanthropic practice (practice of giving for public good at least once a year), as well as companies which realize donation practices according to ad hoc principles (donations for individual projects without a clearly defined strategy) in comparison with companies which have a clearly defined philanthropic strategy, attach a somewhat bigger importance to giving for public good and lesser importance to general development of the community, so in this respect they are closer to the attitudes of average citizens. In contrast to them, companies which have a giving strategy perceive as a primary importance of actions for public good their contribution to general development of the community (76%). Theoretically philanthropy should be perceived as development of the community To achieve this one should have the awareness of long term investment. But it is sometimes easier to react when some difficult situation is in question, because people react more emotionally in such situations. (Representative of an international company with a giving strategy) 6

7 B. ASSESSMENT OF PHILANTROPHY IN SERBIA According to citizens, tradition of giving for public good is developed in Serbia, as well as readiness of individuals to donate for public good. On the other hand, citizens think that this area is not given sufficient importance and encouragement, which is why philanthropic activities in Serbia are on a very low level. People should be activated, they will socialize differently and approach each other differently, help each other, it will be easier for a lot of people... you have numerous persons who would participate, but there is no one to animate them, to stimulate them, give them a push...the willingness is there... but organization is on a zero level... those who can organize and animate people do that only when they have the motive of own benefit... (Statement of FGD participant) As much as 73% of citizens think that donations for public good are too scarce in Serbia. The percentage of citizens with such attitude has even increased in comparison with 2009 when 66% of citizens shared that attitude. Even a higher percentage of citizens think that giving for public good is not encouraged enough, and the percentage of citizens with such attitude has also increased in comparison with 2009 (from 81% to 90%). Citizens mainly indicate poor economic situation in society (56%) as the main reason for such general situation in the area of philanthropy, but a considerable percentage of citizens also mention lack of awareness about public good and lack of interest in the problems of others (22%). (Figure 2) Some company representatives mention similar opinions. The tradition of giving donations and solidarity is now lost because of the severe economic crisis, but also due to the loss of confidence in state institutions, as well as the fact that social ethic is declining. Compared with the period of the late 80s of the last century, we can say that we have lost the spirit of empathy for those who have nothing or have less. Today, people have very little time, a lot of stress at work with working hours that are endless. Pressure is extremely high and this is definitely one of the reasons for the absence of empathy. (Representative of a domestic company without a giving strategy) These reasons, however, in the eyes of citizens, are not evenly distributed when it comes to donations of citizens and donations of companies. The majority of citizens (64%) think that the destitute financial situation is the reason why individuals do not donate more, while just 23% think that the bad financial situation of companies is the reason why companies do not donate more. In case of companies, citizens primarily perceive indifference of the owners and lack of culture and care for public good as the reason for insufficient donations. One of these two reasons is mentioned by more than a half of the citizens (35% and 21%). (Figure 3) 7

8 Companies agree with citizens that the business sector is insufficiently included in giving for public good: one out of four companies think that the business sector is included too scarcely, while 74% think that it is included to some extent, but not sufficiently. None of the company representatives expressed the opinion that companies are sufficiently included in philanthropic activities. Companies mention, as the main reason for insufficient inclusion of companies in philanthropic activities, the general climate of indifference in society, 65%, but, they blame considerably more than the citizens the bad financial situation of companies (57%), and unfavorable legal regulations (56%). Bad financial situation of companies is particularly accentuated by companies without giving practice. (Figure 4) A considerable number of companies perceive insufficient transparency of money flows (45%) and insufficient confidence in organizations which carry out the actions (39%) as the main reasons for insufficient inclusion of companies. 8

9 Both citizens and company representatives which have a philanthropic practice agree that the economic crisis influenced giving for public good. The majority of citizens, 65%, think that the economic crisis is the reason why it is donated less for public good, while 53% of the companies state that their donations are smaller. Nevertheless, 29% of companies state that their donations remained the same, and 9% that their donations have been increased in spite of the crisis. A smaller percentage of companies which have a philanthropic strategy reduced giving for public good (48%), in comparison with the companies which do not have a philanthropic strategy (62%). Companies which do not have philanthropic practice primarily mention the lack of financial means as the main reason why they do not donate more for public good at least once a year (60%). (Figure 5) The difficult economic situation resulted in the fact that the majority of companies are not able to donate more on an annual level or to allocate in their annual budget the means that could be used as a kind of charitable fund. The majority of companies, including ours, try to survive and help their own employees. (Representative of a company without philanthropic practice) Under the effects of the global economic crisis our company, as many others, is painstakingly struggling with financial problems which the crisis has brought with it. Because of that we did not donate in the past four years. We do not have a problem with motivation, and we are fully aware of the importance of philanthropic donations in our society, but we have a problem with financial means. (Representative of a company without philanthropic practice) On the other hand, both citizens and company representatives also expressed the opinion that the financial crisis is not the key factor due to which giving for public good are so scarce. According to them other circumstances, primarily lack of awareness about public good and indifference about problems of other people, are even more important factors. Unfortunately, a lot of companies have serious problems, and until they solve them they will not be able to turn towards others. The bad economic situation is one of the obstacles, but there are still other successful companies which do not donate. The reason for that is absence of strategy, people on higher positions either are not aware of such things or they do not have a sufficient level of empathy. If employers do not think about this, they can not correctly educate and motivate employees on the hierarchical ladder. (Representative of a company with a philanthropic strategy) Serbia has always been in some kind of crisis, but it depends who is willing to help, if people are willing to help, at least something will be donated, it does not matter how much. (Participant in focus group) 9

10 C. WHAT ARE THE DONATIONS GIVEN FOR AND TO WHOM, AND WHO SHOULD THEY BE GIVEN TO AND WHAT FOR (AREAS AND TARGET GROUPS) According to citizens, the bulk of donations in Serbia is given to various charitable actions aimed at helping vulnerable groups and individuals, while the least is donated for culture and arts, science, advocating good relations between ethnic groups, environmental protection, infrastructure and sport. In line with the idea of philanthropy as charitable action, citizens do not only support such order of donations, but even a higher percentage of them support focusing the resources on the areas of charitable actions and health protection, and even lesser resources to other areas (Figure 6). In that respect there are no significant differences in comparison with According to citizens perception, the groups and institutions which receive donations the most are the poor, the sick, refugees, internally displaced persons and persons with disabilities. In comparison with 2009, the only significant difference is in citizens perception that more is donated for the sick now (24% in 2009 and 33% in 2012.), and less for refugees and internally displaced persons (42% in 2009 and 31% in 2012.) A considerably higher percentage of citizens think that even more than currently should be donated for the sick, the poor, children and the young without parental care, persons with disabilities and mentally handicapped children, and that it should be donated less for refugees and internally displaced persons. (Figure 7) 10

11 For the time being, citizens do not consider donations for development of the community and society as a priority. In circumstances of poverty and excessive number of vulnerable citizens on one side, and limited resources which require clear definition of priorities on the other, the majority of citizens opt for helping vulnerable categories. Everyone reacts to vulnerable children. Regarding talented children everyone says that it would be nice if... I myself did not donate for young talents because there simply is not enough for all of them, I vote for the talents, but vulnerable children are still a priority. (Participant in focus group) One would like to donate for various things, but one mainly focuses on priorities. (Participant in focus group) A representative of a company which has a philanthropic practice and strategy in the area of philanthropy expressed a similar opinion: I think that concrete cases are now helped more, because development of community is a time consuming process, which requires a comprehensible strategy and bigger financial resources. Activities are now more targeting individual cases. (Representative of a company with a philanthropic strategy) 11

12 D. WHO DONATES THE MOST AND WHAT ARE THE MOST NOTABLE ACTIONS AND INITIATORS OF ACTIONS Who donates the most according to citizens? According to citizens, eminent individuals donate the most, while domestic foundations, the state and companies donate the least. Observed in general, the majority of citizens think that organizations and institutions do not donate enough for public good. (Figure 8) One out of four citizens put eminent individuals in the first place according to frequency of donations, while 35% of citizens think that eminent individuals also donate quite a lot for public good (Figures 8 and 9). Percentage of citizens who express this opinion has increased in comparison with 2009, when 27% of citizens shared this attitude. In comparison with 2009, percentage of citizens who think that the church donates enough for public good has decreased (from 29% to 22%). The highest percentage of citizens agree that the state and companies (both state-owned and private) donate the least (more than one half of them think that the state donates too little, and more than 60% that companies donate too little). (Figure 8) Figure 8. CITIZENS: How much is each of these organizations - institutions giving for public good? A little (not at all + a little) Much (rather much + much) Eminent individuals Foreign foundations The media / media companies The church Ordinary citizens Domestic foundations The state / state institutions State-ow ned companies / enterprises Private companies / enterprises

13 The best known actions for public good and initiators of actions What do the citizens say? Judging by the number of actions for public good which citizens mentioned spontaneously, it appears that the majority of citizens are informed about actions for public good. The best known action is Bitka za bebe (Battle for the babies), which 29% of citizens mention spontaneously, while the total awareness of this action (prompting the citizens who did not spontaneously mention it) is as much as 89%. (Figure 10) Less than one third of citizens were unable to mention a single action. The citizens who mentioned some actions (70%) mentioned two actions on average. On the other hand, with the exception of Battle for the babies, actions are mainly mentioned descriptively and in very general terms, rarely more precisely, either by description or naming a concrete action. 13

14 Citizens are much more aware of the actions than of the initiators of actions. It is obvious that citizens pay more attention to the actions themselves than to the initiators of actions. Initiators of actions that citizens most frequently mentioned are B92, the state (government and ministries) and the Vlade Divac Foundation. (Figure 11) It is interesting that citizens mentioned eminent individuals and foreign foundations as organizations which donate the most, but they do not mention them as initiators of actions which they are the most aware of. On the other hand, the state as a donor occupies the bottom place on the list, but it is on the top of the list of initiators of recognizable actions. It is obvious that citizens recognize the difference between the biggest donors and initiators of the best known actions. Since citizens specified names of actions rather imprecisely and in a general manner, it is difficult to ascertain whether particular actions are connected with certain initiators, so frequency of mentions of the initiators is more an indicator of citizens perception of activities of the mentioned institutions and foundations of certain actions than the knowledge who is the initiators of a particular action. The biggest compliance between action and initiator of the action is recorded in the case of Battle for the babies : 74% of those who spontaneously mentioned Battle for the babies also mentioned B92 as initiator of this action (which adds up to 21% of the total population of citizens who mentioned spontaneously, without prompting, Battle for the babies and B92 as an initiator). Citizens most frequently attribute the project Safe House to the B92 Foundation, as well as Purchase of mammogram and actions connected with helping hungry people (Soup kitchens, help for hungry people in Kosovo). The state (government, ministries), as initiator of actions, is mainly associated with help for the victims of natural disasters (earthquakes, particularly in Kraljevo, and floods). The Vlade Divac Foundation is most frequently associated with actions to help refugees, internally displaced persons, the poor and neglected children. 14

15 When asked directly whether they have heard about the actions Battle for the babies, Food for the enclaves, Let all of us help and Small change is not a chicken feed, awareness of these actions increased considerably in comparison with spontaneous awareness (Figure 12). Battle for the babies was spontaneously mentioned by 29% of citizens, but with prompting it rose to 89%. Food for the enclaves was not mentioned spontaneously at all under that name (although it was mentioned as helping hungry people in Kosovo), but after prompting 31% of citizens claimed to have heard about that action. Action Let all of us help was spontaneously mentioned by a very small percentage of citizens (0.5%), but after prompting 15% claimed to have heard about it. None of the citizens mentioned the action Small change is not a chicken feed, but with prompting 8% of the citizens claimed to have heard about this action. (Figure 12) It was shown again that a considerably smaller percentage of citizens knows the initiators of these actions in comparison with the percentage of those who have heard about these actions. Of those who have heard about the action Battle for the babies (83%), 47% knew that the initiator was B92 (which is 39% of the total population of citizens who have heard at the same time about Battle for the babies and that the initiator was B92), 38% did not know the initiator, while other citizens attributed this action to the state, City of Belgrade, the media, health institutions, Rosa water. Of those who have heard about the action Food for the enclaves (31%), 8% specified B92 as the initiator, although this action was mostly attributed to the state (14%), the church, RTS, The Red Cross, Vlade Divac Foundation. Of those who have heard about the action Let all of us help (15%), 12% of citizens attributed this action to Vlade Divac Foundation, 6% to RTS, and then to Novak Djokovic and the state. Of those who have heard about the action Small change is not a chicken feed (8%), only 3% of the citizens knew that the initiator was the Balkan Community Initiatives Fund (BCIF), they mentioned RTS more frequently, local self government and other initiators. 15

16 What do the companies say? Regarding the most active initiators of actions for public good, the majority of companies agree that they come from the NGO sector. More than one half (58%, 28 out of 49 companies) specified as the most active initiators civil society organizations and foundations: one third (33%, 16 out of 49 companies) think that these are civil society organizations, and one out of four companies (25%, 12 out of 49 companies) think that these are civil society foundations. A considerably lower percentage of companies, 14%, think that the most active initiators of actions for public good are companies, 12% mention media, and 10% specify citizens. Only one company thinks that the biggest initiators are representatives of local self government, and one company specifies the state as the most active initiator. (Figure 13) 16

17 E. ROLES OF THE STATE, COMPANIES, CIVIL SOCIETY, CITIZENS AND THE MEDIA IN THE ACTIONS FOR PUBLIC GOOD Roles of certain actors in the area of philanthropy are seen by the majority of citizens in a rather generalized manner, and with the exception of the media, the majority of citizens do not make a clear distinction in priority roles of particular actors. Citizens generally expect from the donors in the area of public good to be more active in terms of support, financing the actions and solidarity with vulnerable categories. Just a small percentage of citizens see the role of the state in stricter control over the flow of funds donated for public good, creation of more favorable legislation and raising of citizens awareness. The majority of citizens see the role of the business sector primarily in bigger donations, but they similarly see the role of citizens, who are expected to donate as much as possible, depending on their possibilities. Organizations of civil society are expected, to a somewhat higher extent in comparison with citizens and the business sector, to initiate actions and education (raising awareness). The role of the media is the only one perceived as utterly different from the roles of other actors, and it includes better coverage of actions and high quality and objective provision of information and promotion of actions for public good. In comparison with citizens, representatives of the business sector make a more clear division of roles in the area of philanthropy. Nevertheless, companies also lack a more precise definition of the roles of certain actors around which there would be a bigger consensus. Companies see the role of the state in the creation of a more favorable ambiance for philanthropy and creation of a more favorable legislation; they see the role of citizens in active participation in actions; the role of the business sector in sponsorships and donations; the role of civil society organizations in initiative, launching actions and identification of problems; the role of civil society foundations in an increased number of tasks: initiative in launching actions, but also in coordination, organization, giving...; they see the role of the media in support, high quality informing and promotion of philanthropy. Concerning the answers of companies regarding the roles of certain actors in the area of philanthropy, companies which gave the most imprecise answers were those without philanthropic practice. In contrast to them, companies with donation strategy defined the expected roles of certain actors with much more precision and consensus than companies which are ad hoc donors. The role of the state Citizens expect from the state very different roles, but most of all to be more involved in helping and financing actions. (Figure 14) Companies see the role of the state primarily in creation of a more favorable ambiance for donations and adoption of more favorable legislation, primarily when it comes to tax relief. (Figure 15) This attitude is prevalent among the companies which have a philanthropic strategy. Tax reliefs would contribute to an increased number of interested companies. But the bureaucracy is such that it is easier for a company not to ask for a tax relief from the state. And many more employees would be involved in this work if we had tax reliefs. (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) Of course it is very good for the state to promote and support philanthropy through financial incentives. We need to hear a clear message from the state. The state has initiated the strategy of corporate social responsibility, but I do not know what happened at the end with this document. (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) The state has to provide incentives to companies which allocate considerable resources for humanitarian donations. There are great opportunities in this area. For example, to rate who donates and how much to the social community and those in need, and to relieve them of certain things. One way is to regulate the taxation policy towards such companies. (Representative of a domestic company with a philanthropic strategy) A smaller percentage of citizens specified more concretely the role of the state. For example control of funds, adoption of tax reliefs, raising citizens awareness through education, stimulating the inclusion of companies and rich individuals 17

18 into actions, and foundation of special funds. However, within discussions in focus groups, citizens accentuated to a higher extent the role of the state in control of donations made by citizens, that is, prevention of abuse. A smaller percentage of companies and citizens see the role of the state in initiation and organization of actions, defining the priorities and creating strategies. Some companies accentuate that the state should not be just a regulator of the law in this area, but they should establish a considerably broader, partnership relation. The state could establish some institution to deal with these issues. This institution could collect good practices from this area, to have all of them in one place, who does what and where, where the investments are lacking. We do not know exactly where the biggest problems are, where it is necessary to react, and that is where I see the role of the state, as a facilitator, with a directing role. (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) I see the state as a partner in this area, it should not be a regulator or a mediator, we need a partner. The government can establish an office to deal with these issues, as a service for all companies which want to be engaged in philanthropic activities, the ones which want to know what other companies are doing, what the burning problems are, in which areas it is done to a lesser extent, and similar issues. It is easier for the state to put it in the NGO sector and make a forum or association. But the state should have a more important role. One good examples is the Serbian Chamber of Commerce which has its prize which it awards once in two years, and this reward is very respected, the process is transparent and I have learned a lot about other initiatives. (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) 18

19 Role of citizens According to both citizens and companies the primary role of citizens is to participate actively in actions and to help within their possibilities. A considerably lower percentage of citizens, 10%, and just one company, singled out voluntary work of citizens. (Figures 16 and 17) Other possible roles of citizens are considerably less frequently pointed out besides direct participation in the actions. Some companies state that the role of citizens, besides direct participation in the actions, could be the promotion of philanthropy through social networks, and pressure to ensure transparency of donations. There are more and more civic associations, parents associations, which initiate many important issues. You as a citizen have more options, either to get involved in some associations or you know where you can contact us if you have some clothes to donate, for example. Employed people can also start an initiative on our work from 9-17h. (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) 19

20 Role of companies Similar to the role of citizens, in case of companies both citizens and companies primarily agree that the role of companies should be in financing and support of actions. (Figures 18 and 19) Other, broader roles of companies are rarely mentioned, besides this one which is directly associated with participation in actions, such as partnership within the business sector and with other actors in the community, raising awareness about the importance of donations for general benefit, giving suggestions for solving the identified problems. Representatives of companies accentuated in individual interviews these broader and more active roles of the business sector. The business sector should take a leading role, instead of creating a picture in the public that the business sector reacts only to pressure. I think that the business sector has the strength to introduce corporate social responsibility through its main job, as well as corporate philanthropy and individual philanthropy. Every company should have the strength to impose this practice into its business program. The business sector can and must be a leader, instead of reacting only to pressure. The situation is now much better than it was five years ago. An increasing number of companies grasp the importance of being responsible towards the community in which they operate their business. If a company wants to operate their business for a longer time, this is inevitable. The time when a company could come to some community, do the job, take profit and leave the damage is long gone. In this sense, the business sector is changing, not rapidly enough, but it is changing. (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) I think that we should restore the old glory of our giving culture of 100 or 150 years ago. It is not the west which brought philanthropy to us, but these are just new forms that our old patrons and donors practiced. Philanthropy has just a new wrapping. Foreign companies pushed domestic companies and stimulated them to work in this area. Inclusion of companies develops giving culture and turns it into a sector. I think that every company can have at least one activity per year. Motivation is the problem. If you have a corporate culture where this goes without saying, you do not need a motive to do something once per year. (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) The role of the business sector should be to help the state solve some big problems and priorities. I think that this sector mainly fulfills this role. I think that it is good to have our, domestic companies which are active and which recognize the needs of our society. Each of the active members of the Global Compact tries to find the key problems that require long-term work. The business sector has become involved in solving key problems. These are the projects which really solve problems. (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) The role of the business sector should be such as to help more and thus return favor to the community in which it operates its business. Before that, it is very important that they primarily straighten up the relations and policy in their company, such as the attitude towards employees, so when all is in good order, to turn towards the external world and help as much as possible. By this I mean material and financial help, but also education, practice, and raising citizens awareness. For example, ecology is becoming a very topical issue, which is yet to become one of the problems that companies should solve. (Representative of a domestic company with a philanthropic strategy) In order for philanthropy to function well in society it is necessary that the business sector is more active and better organized in this respect. Generally, to solve important problems in society three sectors must cooperate NGO, the business sector and the state. When these three sides join forces the most efficient things will result from that synergy. (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) 20

21 21

22 Role of civil society organizations Citizens have the least clear perception of the role of civil society organizations. Almost one half of citizens state that they are not sure what civil society organizations are, so they could not answer the question. Those who answered gave mainly generalized answers along the lines of bigger engagement, help and support. (Figure 20) A small percentage of citizens mentioned a more active role of civil society organizations in initiating actions, education, promotions, influence on other actors in the state, analysis of needs and creation of philanthropic strategies. To a considerably higher extent in comparison with citizens, companies see a more active role of civil society organizations in initiating actions, identification of problems and proposals for solving them. (Figure 21) 22

23 When we talk about the role of civil society organizations in philanthropic donations, representatives of companies particularly point out the role of civil society organizations as a partner of the business sector in the area of philanthropy, but at the same time, they accentuate the problems that these organizations are faced with, primarily the problem of transparency, inefficient specialization and insufficient initiative in relation with the business sector. Civil society organizations are in charge of extending help, but due to some notorious CSOs from previous times, people look at them with skepticism. Such cases with suspicious ways of financing were not scarce, but that does not mean that all of them are like that. (Representative of a domestic company with a philanthropic strategy) They should specialize in certain areas and become experts in these areas, primarily in order to alleviate the business sector to be included in solving of problems. They have logistics, network, and expertise which the business sector does not have. It is also necessary to establish some website with data about all organizations which are active, describing their field of action, their achievements. This is what the business sector needs, to be directed towards burning problems... Confidence in foundations has become a bit shaky both with citizens and companies. This confidence must be regained. Space of civil society organizations should be straightened up, and we should find the way to make the rating of these organizations known... (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) Civil society organizations have an important role. This is the sector which still has to be developed. In western countries their role is recognized. Civil society organizations are the drivers of changes exactly due to the position which can gather interested parties; they have the possibility to cooperate with companies, citizens and the state. They should behave like an umbrella organization from which an initiative can come, they have space to open certain questions, and they also have the strength to motivate and animate others. We cooperated with a number of CSOs and our experience is positive. This is a partnership which provides numerous information, regarding how donations should be made, to those who want to donate. This is the role of CSOs. To inform everyone about the problems and ways to overcome these problems. This is how trust is earned. The state and media should make these CSOs visible. In our culture, civil society organizations are also perceived as a novelty which came from the west some years ago. But this is not so. This idea is as old as we are. Attitude of the business sector and CSOs is still not satisfactory, they do not cooperate enough. This is a good terrain on which it is necessary to act, and I think that initiatives which will improve this situation are very good. (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) It is striking however that, similarly to citizens, the majority of companies without giving practice (67% or 9 out of 15 companies) do not have any opinion about the possible role of CSOs. 23

24 Role of civil society foundations The role of civil society foundations among companies is mostly vague. Companies specify a number of roles which they should primarily have, but the distinction in comparison with CSOs is very small. Just a small number of companies mention sponsorships and donations which are not mentioned in the case of civil society organizations. (Figure 22) Role of the media The role of the media is most clearly defined both among citizens and companies: better coverage of actions and high quality and objective reporting and promotion of actions for public good. (Figures 23 and 24) Such engagement of the media would increase citizens and companies motivation for donations, so one can say that the role of the media is to stimulate motivation for giving for public good. (Figure 26) 24

25 The majority of citizens think that the media are not sufficiently engaged in informing and supporting actions for public good. (Figure 25) This attitude of the citizens has not changed in comparison with Such attitude is in line with the citizens wish to be better informed primarily about the outcomes of actions, which would increase their confidence that the donated funds are used completely for the intended purposes, and this in turn would increase citizens motivation for bigger participation in actions for public good. 25

26 Companies agree with citizens that the media are insufficiently and often inadequately involved in coverage of philanthropic activities: 53% think that they are insufficiently involved, 38% that they are involved a little. Companies often criticize the media for selective communication of information about philanthropic actions and the way of informing where it is not clearly seen where the difference is between advertisement promotion of campaigns and philanthropic action the primary purpose of which is not to be advertised. According to some company representatives this creates an additional suspiciousness among the citizens and reduces motivation for giving donations. The media have different criteria than the rest of us. For them the first donation is maybe interesting, but after that, there is no more interest. Their role would be to write attractive reports about philanthropy and donations, to create a place which would contain information about all actions, stories with happy endings. We should remove motives, who is promoted and how... If there was a place with information on which company extended help and to whom, everyone would have more ideas about helping others. It seems that this is what is missing in the media space. The role of journalists in corporate philanthropy would be to communicate good messages, stories with happy endings, ongoing stories. Unfortunately, journalists mainly do not recognize this. (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) The media still regard companies which promote corporate social responsibility as if they wish to occupy marketing position. The media must work much more on education of citizens and media employees, they must participate more in promotion of good examples without accusing companies that they are promoting themselves, but they should find good examples. (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) The media should definitely work more on the education of people. Their role is maybe the strongest in this area, even stronger than the role of the state. They can make a link between companies and vulnerable persons. Such example is Exploziv on TV Prva. However, there are not many such programs, and I think that the media are really capable to raise citizens awareness about that, while still avoiding sensationalist levels. It often happens in our country because the media are oriented towards circulation, viewership and sale. (Representative of a domestic company with a philanthropic strategy) The media could help a lot. They still communicate information selectively here. In Serbia there are excellent projects which can not get a deserved media attention. The problem lies in the fact that the media still do not have a developed awareness about social responsibility and philanthropy as its part. It seems that they still reduce it to PR marketing of some company, which creates a certain barrier. Unfortunately our media are in a really poor condition, so in the center of our public interest are some affairs and scandals, rather than philanthropic activities. Since circulation is breathing down their neck this is understandable, but philanthropy should also be given some space. (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) The media should definitely be more involved; they should cover humanitarian activities and educate society about all that. The problem is not only in insufficient communication of real information, but in the way of communication which is not susceptive enough. The media do not sufficiently fulfill this role, and they should work more on education and dissemination of a positive picture in this way. (Representative of a domestic company with a philanthropic strategy) At the moment the media are preoccupied with circulation figures, sensations. Serbia is a country where sensation policy is practiced, and it is but natural for the media to chase such contents. They have developed a need among readers to feed them with daily dose of scandalous topics. This is a problem of both the media and the state. The media should promote philanthropy more actively, and companies should have a better contact with media companies which promote real values, than with those which chase circulation, sell lies and slander. I think that citizens, in the majority of cases, perceive philanthropic activities as advertisement and PR. Our people generally despise people who have money. They perceive their humanitarian donations in the same way, with skepticism and distrust. Maybe this is because the media do not sufficiently inform citizens about the essence of philanthropic activities. (Representative of a company without a giving practice). 26

27 But there are also some opinions according to which all responsibility is not only on the media The role of the media is definitely in giving adequate space to these topics. But the media are not the only ones responsible. Journalists do not need anyone to explain to them how to do their job or to give them finished news; our perspective is that journalists will never write anything without considerable media potential. I think that everyone in this chain must do their part of work. We from the companies should better understand the work of journalists and we should try to avoid providing sentences like: I did this, I did that, my company is the best... We should really try to raise the awareness about the importance of investing in the community. (Representative of an international company with a philanthropic strategy) When it comes to promotion of philanthropic activities companies expect the most from RTS - (41%) and the media with a national frequency (41%), while only 15% has the biggest expectations from local media. On the other hand, the importance of the media in raising motivation of companies to donate is striking. Although, according to the majority of companies, promotion of a company is not a primary motive for donations, a big majority of the companies with giving practice agree that bigger promotion in media could stimulate them to do even more in development of philanthropy in Serbia (Figure 26) 27