The Benefits of Separating Charitable and Philanthropic Giving
in Nonprofit Marketing
Concept Analyses and Proposal of Operational Definitions*
Fumitaka Watanabe†

What is the difference between charitable and philanthropic giving as marketing “products” for monetary
donations? Concept analyses of the two words reveal that charitable giving is low-risk and urgent giving for
immediate basic human needs. Philanthropic giving is various giving for a better future society. The concept
analyses propose risk and timing as defining attributes of the two. A literature search reveals that the difference
between the two concepts is out of focus of existing review articles. Charitable and philanthropic giving may havespecific promotions that are effective in encouraging donors. For example, the Identifiable Victim Effect has muchevidence in charitable giving. Legitimizing Paltry Favors has much evidence in philanthropic giving. Operational
definitions of charitable and philanthropic giving are beneficial for fundraisers who must choose which promotions
attract monetary donations more effectively.
Keywords: Charitable giving, philanthropic giving, charity, philanthropy, fundraising

寄付のマーケティングにおいて，「商品」としての charitable giving と philanthropic giving の 2 つの言葉の概念分析を行う．その結果，前者は人間の基本的なニーズに応える低リスクかつ緊急の寄付であること，後者はより良い未来社会のための多様な寄付であると示す．本稿ではリスクと時間の 2 つを，両概念を定義する属性として提案する．文献検索の結果，Charitable giving と philanthropic givingの差異は既存のレビュー論文の焦点から外れていることがわかった．この 2 つの種類の寄付には，それぞれ効果的なプロモーションがあるのかもしれない．例えば，「特定可能な被害者」効果（IVE）は前者に，「わずかな好意の正当化（LPF）」は後者において多くのエビデンスがある．この 2 つの用語の操作的定義は，どの施策が寄付募集に効果的かを判断するファンドレイザーにとって有益と思われる．
キーワード: チャリタブル・ギビング，フィランソロピック・ギビング，チャリティ，フィランソロピ
ー，ファンドレイジング*

本稿は，2021 年 6 月 15 日にオンラインで開催された日本 NPO 学会第 23 回研究大会で発表された論文「Charity と Philanthropyのそれぞれに特異的なファンドレイジング手法のレビュー」を元にしている．学会発表の際，討論者の中嶋貴子博士（大阪商業大学）や参加者の方々から，有益なコメントを頂いた．また，準備セミナー（2021 年 5 月 22 日）の段階で松島みどり博士（筑波大学）をはじめとする参加メンバーの方々から示唆に富むコメントを頂いた．ここに記して感謝する．むろん，本稿にあり得べき誤りは，著者の責任である．
†
京都大学経営管理大学院 博士後期課程／信州大学社会基盤研究所 特任講師／公益財団法人京都大学 iPS 細胞研究財団
社会連携室長〒606-8501 京都市左京区吉田本町
E-mail: f.watanabe@outlook.com

underpinnings” of target concepts (p. 17). Many researchers use
concept analysis in the field of nursing (Xyrichis and Ream
2008). Since the present paper aims to clarify the concepts andapply the implications into practice, there is much to be learned
from nursing, which implements medical research into reality.
Fundraising is an emerging profession that requires “a formal
body of knowledge based on theory and research” (Brown,
2004, p. 86), as nursing was in the past. Concept analysis works
as a foundation of theoretical progress in fundraising andenables fundraisers and nonprofit marketers to communicate
more straightforwardly. Among the various concept analysis
methods, eight steps that Walker and Avant (2005) organized arepractical. The rest of this article follows their eight steps (Table
1).

1． Introduction
Philanthropy is an essentially contested concept (Daly 2012).
Though the definition of philanthropy is often regarded assynonymous with a “charitable donation” (Sulek 2010), muchliterature argues that philanthropy and charity are different (e.g.,
Frumkin, 2008). If there is a difference between “charitablegiving” and “philanthropic giving” as the aim of monetary
donations, scholars should investigate the characteristics of thetwo “products” when applying marketing theories in fundraising.
There are at least two reasons that we should scrutinize thedifference. The first reason is that a specific marketing techniquemight be effective in the “promotion” of charitable giving but
not effective in philanthropic giving. Nonprofit marketers arealways looking for effective promotions for their specific“products,” not for various products in general. Just as different
nudge techniques can promote “impulsive” and “deliberative”
monetary donations (Karlan et al. 2019), charitable andphilanthropic giving may have effective “promotions,”
respectively. The second reason is that specific segmentation ofdonors might show a stronger preference for philanthropic
giving than for charitable giving. Just as the specific causes
attract donors with specific attributions (Srnka et al. 2003;
Neumayr and Handy 2019), charitable and philanthropic giving
may have suitable “segmentations” to aim at in marketing.
Generally, nonprofit marketers and fundraisers cannot easilychange the “products,” which is the usage of the donation. If
there is a difference in donor response between the products, it is
the first thing that nonprofit marketers and fundraisers should
know to determine their appropriate targets and promotions.
As I show in this article, charitable giving and philanthropic
giving are different “products” in the monetary donation market,
just as shares and bonds are different products in the financial
market. The difference is related to the risk and similar to thedifference between service and products (Murray 1991). Service
marketing literature has produced fruitful insights for service
marketers. Similarly, distinguishing philanthropic giving fromcharitable giving will produce implications for practitioners.
This paper reviews the extant literature to clarify the difference
between the two types of monetary donations in nonprofit
marketing.

Table 1: Eight steps by Walker and Avant (2005)

Concept analysis steps

Presentation
positions

1. Select a concept

2.1.

2. Determine the aims of concept analysis

2.2.

3. Identify all uses of the concept

3.1.

4. Determine the defining attributes

3.3.

5. Identify a model case

3.4.

6. Identify borderline, related, contrary, invented,
and illegitimate cases

3.5.

7. Identify antecedents and consequences

3.6.

8. Define empirical referents

3.7.

Source: The author created the table from Walker and Avant (2005)

2.1．Selection of concepts to analyze
We need to break down “products” in the marketing ofmonetary donations into at least two categories: “charitablegiving” and “philanthropic giving.” Since we are interested inmonetary donations, “charity” and “philanthropy” are too broad
as concepts. Indeed, “charity” often means a nonprofit
organization. “Philanthropy” often includes actions without
money transfer. The term “philanthropy” has a contested andbroad meaning (Daly 2012), so the term “philanthropic giving”
is more appropriate for specifying monetary donations tophilanthropic objectives.
2.2．Determine the purpose of analyses

2．Method：Concept analysis approachThis concept analysis aims to establish operational definitionsof two terms—charitable giving and philanthropic giving—that
enable recommendable marketing strategies for each. Many
authors argue the distinction between charity and philanthropy

Booth et al. (2012) argue that concept analysis is a way to
explicitly “seeks to define, expand and extend the theoretical1

Next, I searched review articles on “charity,” “charitablegiving,” “philanthropy,” and “philanthropic giving” using the
Web of Science, GoogleScholar, and EBSCOhost to determine
how the two concepts are used. The literature was limited to
articles published in English. I also did ancestry searches byscanning the reference list of the review articles.

(Frumkin 2008; Payton and Moody 2008; Phillips and Jung
2016). We will obtain a more scrutinized comparison of the twoterms by this concept analyses.

3．Results
3.1．Identify the Uses of the Concepts

3.1.1．Philanthropy/Philanthropic giving

The number of search results shows that “charity” and“charitable giving” are more common than “philanthropy” and“philanthropic giving (Table 1).” We can find that thecomparative popularities of the words. According to Ma et al.
(2021), “charity” is more popular than “philanthropy” among
Humanities Metaparadigm (Ma et al., 2021, Figure 4).
“Charitable giving” is much more popular than “philanthropic
giving” among Social Science Metaparadigm, and we cannot
find the term “philanthropic giving” in the figure that visualized
the knowledge structure of nonprofit and philanthropic studies.
The Figure 4 by Ma et al. (2021) implies that most articles insocial science describe monetary donations using the term
“charitable giving.” The present study is an attempt to subdivide
charitable giving based on the literature review.

In philanthropic studies, one widely accepted definition ofphilanthropy is “the private giving of time or valuables (money,
security, property) for public purposes” by Salamon (1992, p10).
In an academic context, the word “philanthropy” is used as an“essentially contested concept” (Daly 2012). Sulek (2010)
explored the meaning of philanthropy in modern academic
literature and pointed out that most scholars use the word
“philanthropy” as a synonym for “charitable donations” and that
there are some notable exceptions. Philanthropy is now
expanding in combinations with the words such as strategic,
venture, entrepreneurial, catalytic, and so forth (Phillips andJung 2016). In a review article in public economics,
philanthropy encompasses “donating time, helping a stranger,
participating in a community event, and even helping one’s
family members” (Andreoni & Payne, 2013, p. 5). Thisdefinition might be the broadest use of philanthropy. The term
“philanthropic fundraising” is used in a review article byLindahl and Conley (2002), and the term covers fundraising forvarious causes. The term “philanthropic giving” or“philanthropic gift” has been used in previous studies primarily
to describe giving by corporations (Bose et al. 2017) orfoundations (McClure et al. 2017). Regarding the recipient of
the gift, the higher education sector tends to use “philanthropic”
to describe donations to universities (McAlexander et al. 2014;
Thompson and Burnett 2019). This is reasonable considering
the definitions by Worth (2015) who described philanthropy as“investment in the infrastructure of society.” Indeed,philanthropic giving often benefits organizations outside thenonprofit sector such as public schools and for-profit hospitals
through nonprofit affiliates that accept monetary donations(Barman 2017). According to Wright (2001), philanthropy is anincreasingly commanding act in the U.S..

Table 2. The number of search results as of August 22, 2021
Web of

GoogleScience

ScholarEBSCOhostcharity

36,976

983,000

273,911charitable giving

4,453

296,000

27,175philanthropy

8,892

81,000125,225874

81,000733

philanthropic giving

Source: Created by the author using the search result data.

As we cannot find direct definitions of “charitable giving”
and “philanthropic giving” in dictionaries, I examined thedefinitions of “charity” and “philanthropy” in four English
dictionaries (Cambridge Dictionary; Macmillan Dictionary;
Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online; The New Oxford
Dictionary of English) and four encyclopedia articles (Anheier
2005; de Paiva Duarte 2013; Saukko 2014; Cheek et al. 2015) tofind the defining attributes of the two (See the Appendix 1 and
2). De Paiva Duarte (2013) cited the book by Visser et al. (2010)
and Cheek et al. (2015) cited Gunderman (2009) to describe thedefinitions of the concepts. In these definitions, we can see thatphilanthropy is sometimes regarded as the synonym of charity.

3.1.2．Charity/Charitable giving
In contrast, the word “charitable organizations” has a limiting
connotation to be “organizations concerned with helping those2

in need of food, shelter, and other necessities of life (Steinberg &Powell, 2006, p. 2).” The single word “charity” means anonprofit organization as a legal entity in the U.K. (Anheier2014). However, “even charities are trying to disassociatethemselves from charity” because of the limiting connotations(Phillips & Jung, 2016, p. 11). A highly cited interdisciplinary
review article defines charitable giving in a broad sense as “thevoluntary donation of money to an organization that benefits
others beyond one’s own family (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011a,
p. 925).” Notably, most charitable giving is directed toorganizations in the nonprofit sector (Barman 2017). In the U.K.,
charity and charitable giving are the preferred terms with anegalitarian and respectful image (Wright 2001).

fundamental notions underlying philanthropy that differentiate itfrom a charity. A review article on nonprofit marketing(Sargeant and Woodliffe 2007) uses the word “giving” and“monetary donations” and does not distinguish between the twoconcepts.
3.2.1．Philanthropy as an investment
According to the Havens et al. (2006), the reason why major
donors in the U.S. preferred to make a gift for educationalcauses is due to “the increasing trend in philanthropy towarddonor interest in tackling the root cause of social problems rather
than ameliorating them (p. 560).” Havens et al. (2006) also
pointed out that “business and investment practices” (p. 560)
had reshaped philanthropy. Encyclopedia of Corporate Social
Responsibility (de Paiva Duarte 2013) and Encyclopedia of
Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (Saukko 2014) refer toKanter (1999) and explain that philanthropy is not just charity
but a strategic business investment. This definition ofphilanthropy as a kind of investment is also found in a textbook
for fundraisers by Worth (2015). Thus, many authors show thatphilanthropy is related to business and investment.

3.2．The distinction between charity and philanthropy
Many authors have argued the difference between the
charitable effort to alleviating human suffering and thephilanthropic effort to end them (Andrews 1950; Ostrower
1995; Sealander 2003; Payton and Moody 2008; Gunderman
2009; Dodgson and Gann 2020). In the third sector researchcontext, the two concepts’ interchangeable use seems to be a
problem to be solved. Steinberg and Powell (2006) mentionedthat restricting the definition of philanthropy to the transfer offunds raises the question of its distinction from charity (p. 3).
Payton and Moody (2008) proposed to use the word “charity”
narrowly to express “acts to relieve suffering.” They use“philanthropy” as an umbrella word with broader meanings (p.
38).” Harrow (2010) pointed out that philanthropy is used as “ascaled-up form of charitable giving” in much of the literatureand that the words “philanthropy” and “charity” are among
several words that are used interchangeably by various people
without explanation. A dictionary on nonprofit sector also
differentiates charity and philanthropy (Anheier 2005). The
former is “temporary relief from social problems” (p. 46) toalleviate suffering people. The latter is “a longer-term, more
profound commitment to public benefit that seeks to address theroots of social problems (p. 196).” Frumkin (2008) clearly
described that charity as “the uncomplicated and unconditionaltransfer of money or assistance to those in need with the intent
of helping (p. 5).” According to him, charities have long been
criticized as superficial and not adequately curative without
demanding change and self-help from the poor. Anothercriticism of charity was that it relieves the government of aburden by taking over the work that the government should do.
He insisted that self-help and opportunity creation are the3.3．Determine the Defining Attributes
As we saw in the previous step, a part of the current literature
differentiates between the two concepts. Charitable giving
consists of donations for the short-term support of people in
immediate need. Philanthropic giving is donations for alonger-term, scientific approach to addressing the problem’s root
cause.
Now we can define charitable and philanthropic giving
operationally. Compared to philanthropic giving, charitablegiving is more certain to benefit the suffering people. Ifphilanthropy is a kind of investment (Kanter, 1999; Worth,2015), it is natural that philanthropic giving is associated withthe risk of philanthropic failure (Frumkin, 2008). Therefore, risk
is one of the attributes that divide charitable and philanthropic
giving. Since charitable giving works as the relief for thesuffering (Payton & Moody, 2008) in the short term, alonger-term monetary donation is not charitable giving but
philanthropic giving. If philanthropic giving is a kind ofinvestment, it inevitably takes time to produce a sizeable publicbenefit. Thus, the second defining attribute is time. Philanthropy
has a broad meaning as an umbrella term (Payton and Moody
2008), so philanthropic giving should be more diverse than3

3.4．Related Concepts

charitable giving.
Using risk and time as defining attributes, we can divide
monetary donations into four types, as depicted in Table 3.

Once we determine the defining attributes, we can identify
the related concepts of the two terms. The former is the
alleviation of the suffering of the poor. The latter is “addressing
the root causes of poverty to bring about permanent solutions toit and other social ills.” International Encyclopedia of the Social
and Behavioral Sciences (Cheek et al. 2015) refers to
Gunderman (2009) and points out that three paradigms ofgiving can be distinguished in the current academic discourse.
The first one is “Egoistic Giving,” which is from a donor’segoism. The second is “Compassionate Giving” (Charity)
which aims to addresses immediate human needs. The last is“Scientific Giving,” which addresses the long-term
improvement of the human condition with a systematic
approach. Compassionate giving is related to charitable giving.
Scientific giving is related to philanthropic giving.

Table 3. Four types of monetary donations

Short-termLong-term

Low-riskHigh-risk

Charitable

Philanthropic

givinggivingPhilanthropic

Philanthropic

givinggivingSource: Created by the author.

Low-risk and short-term giving belongs to charitable giving
as its primary objective is to meet urgent human needs. Though
the term “charitable giving” is dominant in social science (Ma etal. 2021), I propose charitable giving should be used morenarrowly for monetary donations to provide immediate relief tothe suffering in an almost certain manner. If a monetary
donation has a high risk of philanthropic failure (Frumkin 2008)
or takes a long period to produce public benefit, the donation
cannot relieve the suffering. Thus, we should not call long-termor high-risk giving “charitable giving.” I propose to use the term
“philanthropic giving” based on the diversity of philanthropy
and its characteristic as a kind of investment. When a nonprofit
organization receives a monetary donation, the organization uses
the money as either charitable or philanthropic giving. Thisterminology highlights the trade-off relationship between
immediate small benefit and long-term benefit with a risk.
The use of the term “philanthropic” will not be out of placefor donors. For example, an entrepreneur who made an
extraordinary gift to Harvard University’s School of Public
Health calls the resource with long-term and high-risk target“philanthropic capital” (Dodgson & Gann, 2020, p. 47).
Charitable giving is often an impulsive act for donors, but thisis not a defining attribute because it is an attribute of donors’
reaction to the “product,” not the product itself. Whether adonor’s decision of monetary donations is strategic or not is also
unsuitable as a defining attribute. The strategic decision is on thedonors' side, so we cannot use it as the defining attribution of“products” on the organizations’ side. A longer time frame or
higher risk of philanthropic giving requires nonprofit
organizations to manage the uncertainty, but charitable giving
also requires a strategy to deal with urgent situations thatthreaten immediate human needs.

3.5．Model and Additional Cases
Let us review the model cases of the two concepts.
Sometimes there are two different ways of using monetary
donations for a single cause. If a nonprofit organization uses
donated money to provide water bottles to thirsty people, it isconsidered charitable giving. If the nonprofit uses the money toconstruct a well in a village, it is a philanthropic giving. Since
self-help and opportunity creation is philanthropy principles(Frumkin, 2008, p. 7), the project would be more philanthropic
if the nonprofit used the money to teach villagers how toconstruct or maintain the well. The two are not entirely
separable, and there is a middle ground between typicalcharitable giving and typical philanthropic giving.
Typical examples of charitable giving are the “gifts madewithin days of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, theHaitian earthquake in 2010, Hurricane Sandy in 2012, andTyphoon Haiyan in the Philippines in 2013” (Worth, 2015, p. 8).
Typical examples of philanthropy are “gifts made to construct
new hospitals, endow universities, or sustain museums” (Worth,
2015, p. 8).
There exist some related cases. Think about monetary
donations to support COVID-19 affected students at a university.
These are gifts for immediate needs of the students, but it is also
a long-term investment for society. Another example is a
crowdfunding campaign to sustain a community center in afinancial crisis. The campaign has a short-term effect(overcoming the crisis) and a long-term effect (a better4

community). Considering the above cases, although charitableand philanthropic giving often consist of contrary cases, there
are ambiguous cases.

after this kind of philanthropic gift (Odendahl 1991).
Philanthropic gifts to art museums might be criticized as
non-effective by the effective altruism movement (Singer 2009).
Sometimes, a vision to attract philanthropic giving is political, so
donors share the same political ideologies and continue
supporting the same vision. For example, female donor
networks support female Democrat candidates financially in
congressional campaigns (Crespin and Deitz 2010).

3.6．Identify Antecedents and Consequences
The antecedents of pure charitable giving are the existence ofvictims with immediate human needs. Of course, theassumption that monetary donations can meet the need isnecessary for charitable giving. Also, the potential donors must
perceive the need before charitable giving. The typicalantecedents of charitable giving are news coverage of a natural
disaster, a civil war, or a terrorist attack. Donors’ moral identity(Hardy and Carlo 2011) becomes salient before they decide to
make a charitable gift or not. Before charitable giving, it is rare
for fundraisers to show off the returns to the donor in exchange
for the gift. Indeed, moral preferences in monetary donations areattenuated when exchange norms are made salient (Goenka and
Van Osselaer 2019).
Contrary to this, an antecedent of philanthropic giving is aperson's vision who wants to address society’s long-term
improvement. As Bremner and Boor (1988) argued, poverty has
not been philanthropy’s only or even its primary concern. In
philanthropic giving, the person with the vision often becomesthe primary donor to realize it. Another critical antecedent ofphilanthropic giving is that the vision is explained to potential
donors. Then, the potential donors judge the extent to which
they stand to gain if the vision is realized. A study of Chinese
subjects asked to rate advertisements soliciting donations forcancer research, a typical philanthropic gift. Subjects rated theadvertisements in which the in-group was the beneficiary morepositively (Suzuki et al. 2020). It is natural that people feel
higher risk when they purchase services than goods (Murray1991). People might search for the information of the nonprofit
organization before they make a philanthropic giving.
Consequences of the two types of giving make a clear
difference. After pure charitable giving, immediate human needs
will be met. Worry often arises that continuous charitable giving
may result in less governmental support to the needy or that thebeneficiaries will rely on self-help less (Frumkin, 2008, p. 5).
After philanthropic giving, the infrastructure of society
improves. Social innovation is also a possible outcome ofphilanthropic gifts (Dodgson and Gann 2020). Since many
prestigious organizations accept philanthropic giving, anincrease in the donor’s social status is often followed when amajor philanthropic gift is made publicly. Criticism often arises

3.7．Empirical Referents of Risk and Timing
Considering the previous discussion, I examine the empiricalreferents (Walker and Avant 2005) of the two concepts inprevious literature on monetary donations. If there is a difference
between charitable and philanthropic giving as concepts, and if
risk and time are appropriate for defining the two’s attributes,
risk and time will affect donors’ giving behavior. As time goesby, risk and ambiguity inevitably increase. However, since risk
and time preferences are different (Andreoni and Sprenger2012), I would argue these two factors separately.
3.7.1．Risk
Dictator game participants give less when there is a greaterrisk that their donation will have less impact (Brock et al. 2013).
Unknown randomness: ambiguity also makes room for the
moral wavering of potential donors. The embezzlement of
donated money is one of the worst things for donors, but suchrisk is difficult to estimate, and it is one of the inhibitors of donor
behavior (Sargeant and Woodliffe 2007). Donors tend to choosea safer strategy in giving because donors generally have regret
aversion (Brest and Wolfson 2020).
Pure charitable giving is expected to be a safer choicebecause the gift will be used to alleviate the recipients' needs
immediately. Indeed, charitable giving donors respond very
sensitively to slight risk. Loewenstein and Small (2003)
conducted a field experiment in a typical charity setting.
Participants made a gift to the organization Habitat for
Humanity to support a needy family. The participants weredivided into two groups in which the family either “has been
selected” or “will be selected” from the recipient list.
Contributions were significantly larger when the recipientfamily had already been determined than when they were yet to
be determined. In a laboratory experiment, Exley (2016)
examined how participants evaluated the risk that donatedmoney may not reach the American Red Cross and the risk that5the participant could not obtain the money. When there is atrade-off between money for a charity and the participants, they
acted more averse to charity risk. The author called thistendency “excuse-driven responses to risk.” This concept
illustrates how a slight risk in charity can be used as an excuse
not to donate.
Philanthropic donors may experience a relatively higher riskthat their small gift is meaningless for a philanthropic cause,making a specific “promotion” effective on this “product.”
Cialdini and Schroeder (1976) experimented with fundraising
for the American Cancer Society, a typical philanthropic
organization. The confederates dressed as the organization’s
solicitors and visited prospects for donating money. The authors
found that adding a short phrase (e.g., “even a penny will help”)
to a direct request nearly doubled the compliance rate without
decreasing the mean donation size. This short phrase is known
as a “Legitimizing Paltry Favor” (LPF), and this promotion is
studied disproportionally many times in philanthropy. A
meta-analytic review by Lee et al. (2016) showedcomparatively more LPF experiments on medical researchcauses and fewer on poverty causes (See Figure 1. Experiments
on non-cash donations were excluded from the graph.). There
are fewer studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of LPFs on
charitable giving.

refugees care is undoubtedly described as charitable giving.
Contrastingly, there are fewer empirical studies onphilanthropic giving in a meta-analytic review of the
Identifiable Victim Effect (IVE) (Lee and Feeley 2016). IVE asa nonprofit marketing promotion is studied disproportionallymany times with specific products; charitable giving such astreating the patients and feeding the poor (See Figure 2.
Experiments on non-cash donations were excluded from thegraph.). Contrastingly, there was only one IVE experiment that
dealt with typical philanthropic giving; medical research.

Figure 2. Experiments on the Identifiable Victim Effect and the gift destinations
Source: Created by the author using the reviewed articles data in Lee andFeeley (2016)

In IVE experiments, donations in 14 experiments were for
expensive medical treatment that requires a certain amount ofmoney to be done. These thresholds are the source of risk, sothese donations are not pure charitable giving.
Major gifts are riskier for donors compared to small gifts.
Philanthropic gifts are riskier than charitable gifts. Therefore, it
is expected that major donors to philanthropic causes arerisk-tolerant people. Indeed, according to Nwakpuda (2020),
major donors who make large contributions to higher
educational institutions in science, technology, engineering, andmath are disproportionately entrepreneurs.

Figure 1. Experiments on the Legitimizing Paltry Favor and the gift destinations
Source: Created by the author using the reviewed articles data in Lee et al.
(2016)

3.7.2．Timing
Categorizing animal welfare into charitable giving isquestionable because charity is mainly for “human” needs.
Caring for the animals leads to a better society; animal welfare
can be categorized as philanthropic giving. Food support andGenerally, people prefer to gain utility now than to gain it in
the future. If charitable giving produces utility immediately andphilanthropic giving produces utility in the future, the former

6

would be preferred by many people. In other words, fundraiserscollecting philanthropic giving should cover this disadvantage
to compete with fundraisers who collect money for immediate
support.
The persuasiveness of a fundraising message is an importantfactor for marketers. There is a study that examined whatmessages were effective for near-timed (within a week) anddistant-timed (within a year) donations (Tugrul & Lee, 2018).
The destination of the gifts is a nonprofit organization thatprovides scholarships to students in Turkey. Messages that
focused on the losses resulting from not donating and appealed
to the feasibility of outcomes were more effective fornear-timed donations. Conversely, for distant-timed donations,the message of the outcome’s desirability was more effective,
focusing on the gain resulting from donating.
This problem is similar to the intertemporal donation choice(Sparrow and Spaniol 2018), which examines the choice
between donating a small amount now or donating a larger
amount later. The authors showed that older adults are moretolerant of postponing donations than younger adults. The
destination of gifts is described as “one local charity from the listof options” in this study, so it seems that there is no option suchas universities or political parties. Suppose we characterize thedifference between charitable and philanthropic giving as thedifference in the timing of producing the public good. Are older
adults also more tolerant of philanthropic giving than younger
adults? The implication from this study is helpful for nonprofit
marketers in considering the target audience of their fundraising.
Next, let us imagine a situation in which a donation made today
will take some time to generate actual public benefit. An
example of this distant-timed donation is study 1D in Williams
et al. (2014). They manipulated psychological distance bypresenting participants with a charitable appeal for the Red
Cross, focusing on potential hurricane victims either for theupcoming hurricane season (near condition) or a hurricane
season 10 years later (distant condition). The result was that thetemporal distance decreased donations by weakening one’s
emotional connection to the victims. This study implies thatphilanthropic fundraising has more difficulty building andmaintaining an emotional connection between the donors andbeneficiaries in the future. In a charity advertisement experiment,
Chang and Lee (2009) examined the effect of temporal framing
on behavioral intention to donate. They described the problemof child poverty as “1,250 children die each hour (short-term)”and “about 11 million children die each year (long-term).”
Temporal framing alone did not cause a significant effect.

However, a short-term frame became effective when combinedwith a negatively framed message and picture. A longer-term
frame was effective with positive framings.
Anisman-Razin and Levontin (2019) divided prosocial
behavior into autonomy-oriented, which corresponded tophilanthropic giving (support that is conducive to future successbut not useful in the present) and dependency-oriented, whichcorresponds to charitable giving (support for coping with thecurrent situation). They showed that consumers with different
mindsets had different preferences. People who held the belief
that personality could be trained (growth mindset) were lesslikely to provide dependency-oriented support than those whoheld the belief that personality does not change over time (fixed
mindset). Beliefs mediate this relationship about theeffectiveness of autonomy-oriented support. Ein-Gar andLevontin (2013) experimented with donations of time andmoney in a charity setting and manipulated temporal and social
distances. The donors were more willing to make a charitable
gift to an organization than to a recipient when there was greater
temporal and social distance. The authors also demonstrated that
empathy mediated charitable gifts to a single victim but did not
mediate charitable organizations’ gifts.
3.8．A literature search of extant review articles
Much literature above explains the significant effects of risk
and timing on charitable and philanthropic giving. Next, I
examine how the difference between charitable andphilanthropic giving is considered in recent review articles. The
overview of the review articles is called umbrella review(Aromataris et al. 2015; Booth et al. 2016). Recently, acomprehensive umbrella review regarding what works toincrease donations was published by Saeri et al. (2022). This
article reviews 21 meta-analyses articles found by theirsystematic search. Out of 21 articles, there are only four articles(Peloza and Steel 2005; Lu 2016; Butts et al. 2019;
Salido-Andres et al. 2021) that use the word “charity” and“philanthropy” but all the four articles omit the definitions anddistinctions of the two terms. The remaining 17 articles do not
use the word “philanthropy” or “philanthropic giving,” showingthat social science disciplines usually do not use these words(Ma et al. 2021).
In addition to the recent meta-meta-analysis above, I search
my literature database and found 11 review articles. There arethree review articles (Coyne et al. 2018; Butts et al. 2019;
Salido-Andres et al. 2021) that were also covered by the7meta-meta-analysis (Saeri et al. 2022). The earliest review is by
Bekkers and Wiepking (2007) that overviews more than five
hundred studies from various disciplines. In this review, authors
define charitable giving as “the donation of money to anorganization that benefits others beyond one’s own family”(Bekkers & Wiepking, 2007 p2). The same definition is used in
the authors’ following article (Bekkers and Wiepking 2011a)that is cited by more than 1,300 papers. The other two review
articles discuss monetary donations in a broad context ofprosocial behavior (Coyne et al. 2018; Laguna et al. 2020).
These four articles discuss charitable giving and philanthropic
giving without distinguishing between the two, though this does
not diminish the value of the articles. Systematic reviews on
alumni loyalty (Iskhakova et al. 2017) and religious giving(Yasin et al. 2020) use the term “charitable giving,” not“philanthropic giving,” though monetary donations touniversities or religious organizations are not “charitable” in thepresent research. There are two systematic reviews on
fundraising media, namely social media (Di Lauro et al. 2019)and crowdfunding (Salido-Andres et al. 2021). These two
articles also do not divide monetary donation into charitable andphilanthropic giving. There are two review articles on the“promotion” of monetary donations. One is about social
information (van Teunenbroek et al. 2020), and another is about
the human tendency to help one victim more than many victims(Butts et al. 2019). These review articles also use “charitablegiving” to describe monetary donations.
Thus, there is a research opportunity when researchers divide
donations into the charitable and philanthropic giving because
the different attributes of the two might better explain theexisting result of previous studies.

potentially fruitful analysis in the literature of monetary
donations. To date, extant review articles found by systematic
search (Saeri et al. 2022) do not address the difference between
charitable and philanthropic giving. The proposed operational
definition enables a more detailed product analysis infundraising studies.
4．Conclusion
Two defining attributes constitute the main difference
between charitable giving and philanthropic giving: risk andtiming. Regarding the risk of giving, charitable giving has lower
risk because the gift recipients are now suffering in poverty andare expected to be highly responsive to the benefits. This
perception leads to the donors’ overhead (Gneezy et al. 2014)
and indirectness aversion. Since philanthropy is a kind ofinvestment, the risks are inevitable. Philanthropic organizations
should have the power to realize the vision and capacity. The
social benefit realized by philanthropic giving is larger thancharitable giving, but it takes time. Since the time–discount rate
and risk preference differ across the population, there must be a
fit between philanthropic giving and a specific personality or
mindset of a potential donor segment.
Fundraisers for philanthropic giving have more difficulty inmaking the effect of the gift tangible than charitable giving.
Philanthropic organizations should therefore supplement their
incentives to donate with their brand and reputation. Overall,there is a practical benefit in distinguishing between charitableand philanthropic giving. These are different products in
nonprofit marketing, and each requires a specific marketingstrategy to collect monetary donations effectively. Moreempirical evidence is required to clarify the differences between
charitable and philanthropic giving. Time and risk can be used
to organize operational definitions of the two, which should
become the basis of further empirical studies on this crucial
difference of the “products” of nonprofit marketing.

3.9 ．Proposal of operational definitions of monetary
donations
The risk and timing of monetary donations are influential
factors in human giving behavior. Thus, we propose operational
definitions of monetary donations by these two factors. They
allow us to divide donations into four quadrants (Table 3). We
can operationally define monetary donations in the second(upper left) quadrant as charitable giving and define monetary
donations in the remaining quadrants as philanthropic giving.
There has been much research on LPF, but we found that mostof it has been on the philanthropic giving (Lee et al. 2016). We
also found that much research on IVE is on charitable giving(Lee and Feeley 2016). This tendency implies an opportunity for

Acknowledgement
This paper is based on the presentation "A Review ofFundraising Methods Specific to Charity and Philanthropy,"
which was presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of theJapan NPO Research Association held online on June 15, 2021.
During the conference presentation, I received valuablecomments from the discussant, Dr. Takako Nakajima (Osaka

8

University of Commerce), and other participants. I also received
thought-provoking comments from Dr. Midori Matsushima(University of Tsukuba) and other participants at the preparatory
seminar (May 22, 2021). I would like to thank them for theircomments. Of course, any possible errors in this paper are theauthor's responsibility.

Bose, Sudipta, Podder, Jyotirmoy and Biswas, Kumar (2017)
Philanthropic giving, market-based performance andinstitutional ownership: Evidence from an emerging
economy, British Accounting Review, vol.49, no.4,
pp.429–444.
Bremner, R H and Boor, D J (1988) American Philanthropy,
University of Chicago Press.
Brest, Paul and Wolfson, Mark (2020) How to think about riskin philanthropy, Stanford Social Innovation Review, vol.18,
no.1, pp.57–58.
Brock, J Michelle, Lange, Andreas and Ozbay, Erkut Y (2013)
Dictating the risk: Experimental evidence on giving in risky
environments, American Economic Review, vol.103, no.1,
pp.415–437.
Brown, David W (2004) What research tells us about planned
giving, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing, vol.9, no.1, pp.86–95.
Butts, Marcus M, Lunt, Devin C, Freling, Traci L and Gabriel,
Allison S (2019) Helping one or helping many? A
theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of thecompassion fade literature, Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 151, pp.16–33.
Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/,(Accessed on 2022/6/19)
Chang, Chun-Tuan and Lee, Yu-Kang (2009) Framing charity
advertising: Influences of message framing, image valence,and temporal framing on a charitable appeal, Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, vol.39, no.12, pp.2910–2935.
Cheek, Dennis W., Kramarek, Michal and Rooney, Patrick(2015) Charity and philanthropy: Overview, International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second
Edition, Elsevier.
Cialdini, Robert B and Schroeder, David A (1976) Increasing
compliance by legitimizing paltry contributions: When evena penny helps., Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, vol.34, no.4, p.599.
Coyne, Sarah M, Padilla-Walker, Laura M, Holmgren, Hailey
G, Davis, Emilie J, Collier, Kevin M, Memmott-Elison,
Madison K and Hawkins, Alan J (2018) A meta-analysis of
prosocial media on prosocial behavior, aggression, andempathic concern: A multidimensional approach,
Developmental Psychology, vol.54, no.2, p.331.
Crespin, Michael H and Deitz, Janna L (2010) If you can’t
join ’em, beat ’em: The gender gap in individual donations
to congressional candidates, Political Research Quarterly,
vol.63, no.3, pp.581–593.

References
Andreoni, James and Payne, A. Abigail (2013) Charitablegiving, in Handbook of Public Economics, pp. 1–50.
Andreoni, James and Sprenger, Charles (2012) Risk preferences
are not time preferences, The American Economic Review,
vol.102, no.7, pp.3357–3376.
Andrews, Frank Emerson (1950) Philanthropic giving, Russel
Sage Foundation.
Anheier, Helmut K (2005) A Dictionary of Civil Society,
Philanthropy and the Non-profit Sector, Taylor & Francis
Anheier, Helmut K (2014) Nonprofit Organizations: Theory,
Management, Policy, Routledge
Anisman-Razin, Moran and Levontin, Liat (2019) Prosocial
behavior reframed: How consumer mindsets shapedependency-oriented versus autonomy-oriented helping,
Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, vol.5,
no.1, pp.95–105.
Aromataris, Edoardo, Fernandez, Ritin, Godfrey, Christina M,
Holly, Cheryl, Khalil, Hanan and Tungpunkom, Patraporn(2015) Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodologicaldevelopment, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review
approach, JBI Evidence Implementation, vol.13, no.3.
Barman, Emily (2017) The social bases of philanthropy, Annual
Review of Sociology, vol.43, no.1, pp.271–290.
Bekkers, René and Wiepking, Pamala (2007) Generosity andphilanthropy: A literature review, SSRN 1015507.
Bekkers, René and Wiepking, Pamala (2011a) A literature
review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eightmechanisms that drive charitable giving, Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Quarterly, vol.40, no.5, pp.924–973.
Bekkers, René and Wiepking, Pamala (2011b) Who gives? A
literature review of predictors of charitable giving Part one:
Religion, education, age and socialisation, Voluntary Sector
Review, vol.2, no.3, pp.337–365.
Booth, Andrew, Papaioannou, Diana and Sutton, Anthea (2016)
Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review,
Second edition, Sage Publications Inc.

9

(https://doi.org/10.48558/Z1NC-K057) Accessed on
2022/6/18
Laguna, Mariola, Mazur, Zofia, Kędra, Michał and Ostrowski,
Karol (2020) Interventions stimulating prosocial helping
behavior: A systematic review, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, vol.50, no.11, pp.676–696.
Di Lauro, Stefano, Tursunbayeva, Aizhan and Antonelli, Gilda(2019) How nonprofit organizations use social media for
fundraising: A systematic literature review, International
Journal of Business and Management, vol.14, no.1,
pp.7–11.
Lee, Seyoung and Feeley, Thomas Hugh (2016) The
identifiable victim effect: A meta-analytic review, Social
Influence, vol.11, no.3, pp.199–215.
Lee, Seyoung, Moon, Shin-Il and Feeley, Thomas Hugh (2016)
A meta-analytic review of the legitimization of paltry favors
compliance strategy, Psychological Reports, vol.118, no.3,
pp.748–771.
Lindahl, Wesley E and Conley, Aaron T (2002) Literature
review: Philanthropic fundraising, Nonprofit Managementand Leadership, vol.13, no.1, pp.91–112.
Loewenstein, George and Small, Deborah (2003) Helping a
victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability,
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol.26, no.1, pp.5–16.
Lu, Jiahuan (2016) The philanthropic consequence ofgovernment grants to nonprofit organizations, Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, vol.26, no.4, pp.381–400.
Ma, Ji, Ebeid, Islam Akef, de Wit, Arjen, Xu, Meiying, Yang,
Yongzheng, Bekkers, René and Wiepking, Pamala (2021)
Computational social science for nonprofit studies:
Developing a toolbox and knowledge base for the field,
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary andNonprofit Organizations.
McAlexander, James H, Koenig, Harold F and DuFault, Beth(2014) Advancement in higher education: The role ofmarketing in building philanthropic giving, Journal ofMarketing for Higher Education, vol.24, no.2, pp.243–256.
McClure, Kevin R., Frierson, Leah, Hall, Adam W. and Ostlund,
Kara L. (2017) Philanthropic giving by foundations tohigher education institutions: A state-level social network
analysis, Philanthropy & Education, vol.1, no.1, p.1.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online,(https://www.merriam-webster.com/) Accessed on
2022/6/18.
Murray, Keith B (1991) A test of services marketing theory:
Consumer information acquisition activities, Journal of

Daly, Siobhan (2012) Philanthropy as an essentially contested
concept, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary
and Nonprofit Organizations, vol.23, no.3, pp.535–557.
Macmillan dictionary, (https://www.macmillandictionary.com/)
accessed 2022/6/18.
Dodgson, Mark and Gann, David (2020) Philanthropy,
Innovation and Entrepreneurship: An Introduction,
Dodgson, Mark and Gann, David Eds., Springer
International Publishing.
Ein-Gar, Danit and Levontin, Liat (2013) Giving from a
distance: Putting the charitable organization at the center ofthe donation appeal, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
vol.23, no.2, pp.197–211.
Exley, Christine L. (2016) Excusing selfishness in charitablegiving: The role of risk, Review of Economic Studies, vol.83,
no.2, pp.587–628.
Frumkin, Peter (2008) Strategic Giving: The Art and Science ofPhilanthropy, University of Chicago Press.
Gneezy, Uri, Keenan, Elizabeth A and Gneezy, Ayelet (2014)
Avoiding overhead aversion in charity, Science, vol.346,
no.6209, pp.632–635.
Goenka, Shreyans and Van Osselaer, Stijn M.J. (2019) Charities
can increase the effectiveness of donation appeals by using amorally congruent positive emotion, Journal of Consumer
Research, vol.46, no.4, pp.774–790.
Gunderman, Richard B (2009) We Make a Life by What We
Give, Indiana University Press.
Hardy, Sam A and Carlo, Gustavo (2011) Moral identity., in
Handbook of Identity Theory and Research, Vols. 1 and 2,
pp. 495–513.
Harrow, Jenny (2010) Philanthropy, in Taylor, Rupert Ed.,
Third Sector Research, pp. 121–137, Springer New YorkHavens, John J, O’Herlihy, Mary A and Schervish, Paul G(2006) Charitable giving: How much, by whom, to what,
and how?, in The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook,
Second edi, pp. 542–567.
Iskhakova, Lilia, Hoffmann, Stefan and Hilbert, Andreas (2017)
Alumni loyalty: Systematic literature review, Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, vol.29, no.3,
pp.274–316.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1999) From spare change to realchange: The social sector as beta site for business innovation,
Harvard Business Review, vol.77, no.3, pp.122–123.
Karlan, Dean, Tantia, Piyush and Welch, Sarah (2019)
Behavioral economics and donor nudges : Impulse ordeliberation ?, Stanford Social Innovation Review.

10Marketing, vol.55, no.1, pp.10–25.
Neumayr, Michaela and Handy, Femida (2019) Charitablegiving: What influences donors’ choice among different
causes?, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary
and Nonprofit Organizations, vol.30, no.4, pp.783–799.
Nwakpuda, Emily I (2020) Major donors and higher education:
Are STEM donors different from other donors?, Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol.49, no.5, pp.969–988.
Odendahl, T (1991) Charity Begins At Home: Generosity And
Self-interest Among The Philanthropic Elite, Basic Books.
Ostrower, Francie (1995) Why the Wealthy Give: The Culture of
Elite Philanthropy, Princeton University Press.
de Paiva Duarte, Fernanda (2013) Philanthropy, Encyclopediaof Corporate Social Responsibility, Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Payton, Robert L. and Moody, Michael P. (2008)
Understanding Philanthropy: Its Meaning and Mission,
Indiana University Press.
Peloza, John and Steel, Piers (2005) The price elasticities ofcharitable contributions: A meta-analysis, Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, vol.24, no.2, pp.260–272.
Phillips, Susan D and Jung, Tobias (2016) Introduction: A new‘new’philanthropy: from impetus to impact, in The
Routledge companion to philanthropy, pp. 25–54.
Saeri, Alexander K, Slattery, Peter, Lee, Joannie, Houlden,
Thomas, Farr, Neil, Gelber, Romy L, Stone, Jake, Huuskes,
Lee, Timmons, Shane, Windle, Kai, Spajic, Luke, Freeman,
Luke, Moss, David, Behar, Jon, Schubert, Stefan, Grundy,
Emily A C and Zorker, Michael (2022) What works toincrease charitable donations? A meta-review withmeta-meta-analysis, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations.
Salamon, Lester M. (1992) America’s Nonprofit Sector: A
Primer, Foundation Center.
Salido-Andres, Noelia, Rey-Garcia, Marta, Alvarez-Gonzalez,
Luis Ignacio and Vazquez-Casielles, Rodolfo (2021)
Mapping the field of donation-based crowdfunding forcharitable causes: Systematic review and conceptual
framework, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, vol.32, no.2,
pp.288–302.
Sargeant, Adrian and Woodliffe, Lucy (2007) Gift giving: Aninterdisciplinary review, International Journal of Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Marketing, vol.12, no.November,
pp.275–307.
Saukko, Emilia (2014) Charitable donations, Michalos, Alex C

Ed., Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being
Research, Springer Netherlands.
Sealander, Judith (2003) Curing evils at their source: The arrivalof scientific giving, in Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in
American History, pp. 217–240.
Singer, Peter (2009) The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End
World Poverty, Random House.
Sparrow, Erika P and Spaniol, Julia (2018) Aging and altruism
in intertemporal choice., Psychology and Aging, vol.33, no.2,
p.315.
Srnka, Katharina J, Grohs, Reinhard and Eckler, Ingeborg(2003) Increasing fundraising efficiency by segmenting
donors, Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), vol.11, no.1,
pp.70–86.
Steinberg, Richard and Powell, Walter W (2006) The Nonprofit
Sector: A Research Handbook, Steinberg, Richard andPowell, Walter W Eds., Second Edi., Yale University Press.
Sulek, Marty (2010) On the modern meaning of philanthropy,
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol.39, no.2,
pp.193–212.
Suzuki, Satoko, Kohlbacher, Florian and Akutsu, Satoshi (2020)
Charitable behavior in China under the charity law:
Evaluation of charity advertisements involving in‐groups
and out‐groups, International Journal of Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Marketing, p.e1696.
van Teunenbroek, Claire, Bekkers, René and Beersma, Bianca(2020) Look to others before you leap: A systematic
literature review of social information effects on donation
amounts, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol.49,
no.1, pp.53–73.
The New Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford University
Press.
Thompson and Burnett (2019) Impact of the S.T.R.I.P.E.S.
leadership and extended orientation program on
philanthropic giving, Philanthropy & Education, vol.2, no.2,
p.53.
Visser, Wayne, Matten, Dirk, Pohl, Manfred and Tolhurst, Nick(2010) The A to Z of Corporate Social Responsibility, John
Wiley & Sons.
Walker, Lorraine Olszewski and Avant, Kay Coalson (2005)
Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing, Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Wiepking, Pamala and Bekkers, René (2012) Who gives? A
literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part two:
Gender, family composition and income, Voluntary Sector
Review, vol.3, no.2, pp.217–245.

11Worth, Michael J. (2015) Fundraising: Principles and Practice,
SAGE Publication.
Wright, Karen (2001) Generosity vs. altruism: Philanthropy andcharity in the United States and United Kingdom,
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary andNonprofit Organizations, vol.12, no.4, pp.399–416.
Xyrichis, Andreas and Ream, Emma (2008) Teamwork: A
concept analysis, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61,
February, pp.232–241.
Yasin, Kidist, Adams, Anita and King, David (2020) How does
religion affect giving to outgroups and secularorganizations? A systematic literature review, Religions,pp.1–22.

12

Appendix 1. Definitions and similar concepts by English dictionaries
Definitions by

Charity or similar concepts

Dictionaries

Philanthropy or similar concepts

The New Oxford

Charity is “An organization set up to provide help and raise

Philanthropy is “the desire to promote the welfare of

Dictionary ofmoney for those in need” or “the voluntary giving of help, typicallyothers, expressed especially by the generous donation

Englishin the form of money, to those in need.”of money to good causes.”

Cambridge

An organization whose purpose is to give money, food, or help to

The activity of helping the poor, especially by giving

Dictionary

those who need it, or to carry out activities such as medical

them money:

research that will help people in need, and not to make a profit:
The giving away of money, esp. in large amounts, toHelp, especially in the form of money, given freely to people whoorganizations that help people:

are in need, for example because they are ill, poor, or have nohome, and organizations that provide this help:

Macmillan

An organization to which you give money so that it can giveThe belief that you should help people, especially by

Dictionary

money and help to people who are poor or ill, or who need advice

giving money to those who need it:

and support:
Money or food that is given to people who are poor or ill so thatthey can live:

Merriam-Webster

1a: generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or

1: goodwill to fellow members of the human race

Dictionary Online

suffering

especially : active effort to promote human welfare

also : aid given to those in need

2a: an act or gift done or made for humanitarian

1b: an institution engaged in relief of the poor

purposes

1c: public provision for the relief of the needy

2b: an organization distributing or supported by funds

3a: a gift for public benevolent purposes

set aside for humanitarian purposes

3b: an institution (such as a hospital) founded by such a gift
4: lenient judgment of others

13Appendix 2. Definitions and similar concepts in the encyclopedia articles
Encyclopedia articles

Charity or similar concepts

Philanthropy or similar concepts

Dictionary of Civil Society“Charity” is “the voluntary giving to those in need, which includes“Philanthropy” is “the use of personal wealth and skills

Philanthropy and thealms-giving, the institution or organization involved in helping thefor the benefit of specific public causes”

Non-Profit Sector

needy, as well as notions of kindness, benevolence, mercy and(Anheier, 2005)

tolerance in judging others”

A longer term, deeper commitment to public benefit
that seeks to address the roots of social problems

Temporary relief from social problems to alleviate of suffering people

Encyclopedia of

Derived from the Greek word philanthropos, which means “love ofCorporate Social

humankind,” philanthropy refers to charitable acts carried out to

Responsibility

promote the good of society (Visser et al. 2007).

Synonym of charity(de Paiva Duarte, 2013)
Encyclopedia of Quality ofCharity is seen as individual benevolence and caring; it refers toLife and Well-Being

efforts to solve common social problems such as poverty. It includes,

Research

but is not limited to, helping the sick, the disabled, or the elderly and(Saukko, 2014)

other form of humanitarian relief. It is found in all major world cultures

Synonym of charity

and religions through time. Charity is not only a religious phenomenon,
but it is one of the “five pillars” in Islam and central to Christian andJewish religious teaching and practice (Anheier, 2005, p. 8). Charitable
donations are gifts donated to charity by individuals or organizations.
Charitable organizations can be nonprofit organizations, private
foundations, or religious organizations/congregations. The donations
are usually in the form of money, but can also be clothing, real estate,various equipments, and other assets or services. Volunteering is
donating time to beneficial purposes, such as helping the needy.

International

Compassionate Giving (Charity):A model of philanthropy aiming toRefering Gunderman (2008)

Encyclopedia of thesatisfy immediate human needs

Egoistic Giving:A function of a donor’s egoism to obtain

Social and Behavioral

political power, social repent or satisfaction of one’s

Sciences

pride(Cheek et al., 2015)
Scientific Giving:Giving to address far-reaching goals toimprove systematically particular aspects of the humancondition

14