Giving in
Numbers2014 E DI TION
An in-depth analysis of 2013
corporate giving and employee
engagement data from 261 of
the world’s leading companies.

IN ASSOCIATION WITHABOUT CECP
CECP is a coalition of CEOs united in the belief that societal improvement is an essential
measure of business performance. Founded in 1999 by Paul Newman and other businessleaders, CECP has grown to a movement of 150 CEOs of the world’s largest companies
across all industries. Revenues of engaged companies sum to $7 trillion annually. A
nonprofit organization, CECP offers participating companies one-on-one consultation,
networking events, exclusive data, media support, and case studies on corporate
engagement. For more information, visit cecp.co.

ABOUT CECP DATA SOLUTIONSThe Giving in Numbers Survey collects data that populates a customizable, online
benchmarking database containing more than $155 billion in comparative datacollected since 2001. In addition, CECP researchers are available for in-depth data
consultations for all CECP-affiliated companies. If your company is interested inaccessing better metrics and accurate peer-to-peer reporting to serve its corporate
giving, contact CECP: info@cecp.co or 212-825-1000.

ABOUT THE CONFERENCE BOARD
The Conference Board is a global, independent business membership and research
association working in the public interest. Its mission is unique: To provide the world’s
leading organizations with the practical knowledge they need to improve theirperformance and better serve society. The Conference Board conducts research andhosts webcasts and conferences on corporate philanthropy, citizenship, sustainability,
and other corporate leadership issues. In 2014, The Conference Board Initiative on
Corporate Philanthropy launched Giving Thoughts, a blog and online publication series
that engages corporate philanthropy experts in an open dialogue about topical issues ofconcern to member companies. Among the topics explored in this series is social impact
measurement, while authors featured include Professor Paul Brest of the Stanford
Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society and Gina Anderson of the Centre for Social
Impact at the University of New South Wales, Australia.
The Conference Board’s councils provide exclusive peer learning opportunities in which
executives share best practices and solve problems in a highly confidential and collaborative environment. Councils discussing or closely related to corporate philanthropy
include Contributions Council I and II, Global Social Investing Council, and Business andEducation Council. The Conference Board is a non-advocacy, not-for-profit entity holding 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status in the United States. www.conference-board.org. For
more information, please contact Jonathan Liu: jonathan.liu@conference-board.org or
212-339-0257.

Download additional copies of this report at:
cecp.co/research or conference-board.org/publications.
When referencing findings from this report, please list the source as:
CECP, in association with The Conference Board. Giving in Numbers: 2014 Edition.
Copyright © 2014 by CECP.

Giving in
Numbers2014 E DI TION
An in-depth analysis of 2013
corporate giving and employee
engagement data from 261 of
the world’s leading companies.

IN ASSOCIATION WITH

preface
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the Great Recession
ended in 2009. Giving in Numbers: 2014 Edition explores how corporate philanthropy andsocially motivated employee engagement programs have emerged in the post-recession
era. Research from The Conference Board has shown that consumer confidence and CEO
expectations improved annually since 2010; moreover, corporate giving has thrived,
particularly among companies with strong business growth. From 2010 to 2013, corporate
giving increased for a majority of companies (64%), but the growth of giving has slowed:
2013 saw the largest marginal change by companies that decreased giving and the smallest
marginal change by companies that increased giving.
CEOs at CECP’s 2014 CEO event, the Board of Boards, identified employees as the mostimportant stakeholder influencing decisions to expand community investments. In turn,
companies are expanding their socially motivated employee engagement opportunities
to offer new ways for employees to participate in company efforts. For example, Pro
Bono Service programs were made available by companies in each industry for the firsttime. Generous employee service policies do not typically offset cash contributions:
67% of companies offering Pro Bono Services in 2013 had increased cash giving
since 2010. Also, employee participation in matching gifts generally led to increased
corporate cash giving overall. Keep up the great work, employees!
Employees are not the only stakeholder group interested in a company’s effect on society.
Nielsen reports that a majority of consumers responding to the Nielsen Global Survey on
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) indicate they are willing to pay extra for products andservices from companies that are committed to positive social and environmental impact.
What’s more, the percentage willing to pay that premium in 2014 has increased since 2011.
Corporate funders are clearly interested in the social value created by grantmaking
programs. A majority (76%) of companies measured societal outcomes and/or impacts
in 2013, the inaugural year in which Giving in Numbers included specific questions aboutprogram evaluation. Education, Health and Social Services, and Community and Economic
Development are the primary cause areas in which companies measured results. It’s
worth noting that most companies are relatively new to the impact-evaluation field, withfewer than five years of experience in formally tracking their results.
This edition of Giving in Numbers would not be possible without the tremendous support of the talented staff at CECP, particularly Carmen Perez, Jinny Jeong, and Kate
Crisalli, as well as The Conference Board, notably Alex Parkinson, Henry Silvert, Judit
Torok, and Matteo Tonello. We would especially like to thank Newman’s Own Foundation,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and The Travelers Companies, Inc. for their support ofGiving in Numbers: 2014 Edition. Their commitment to transparency in the corporatesocial responsibility field is commendable and their support allows CECP to present thisreport free of charge on our website, cecp.co.
My personal hope is that companies, nonprofits, and academics use the research findingsin this year’s report to inform strategic decisions about how to effect significant socialchange through corporate community partnerships. CECP welcomes feedback for how
to make the annual release of Giving in Numbers as useful as possible, so please do nothesitate to contact us with your ideas!

Michael Stroik
Report Author
Manager, Research and Analytics
CECP

2

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

contents
Snapshot of Corporate Giving in 201342013 DATA SNAPSHOT

5

2013 BENCHMARKING TABLES

6

2013 QUARTILE BENCHMARKING

8

Corporate Giving Trends in Context

9

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE AND BUSINESS PERFORMANCE

10

GIVING AT THE COMPANY LEVEL

11

TRENDS IN CASH AND NON-CASH GIVING

12

REASONS FOR GIVING INCREASES AND DECREASES

13

TRENDS AMONG AMERICA’S LARGEST 100 COMPANIES14PREDICTIONS FOR 2014 GIVING LEVELS

15

Grant Portfolio Breakdown

16

A MIX OF FUNDING TYPES

17

GIVING BY PROGRAM AREA

18

INTERNATIONAL GIVING

20

Employee and Stakeholder Engagement

22

EMPLOYEE VOLUNTEERISM

23

PRO BONO SERVICE

25

MATCHING GIFTS26

PHILANTHROPIC LEVERAGE

28

Administration Practices and Program Costs

29

CORPORATE FOUNDATIONS

30

BUDGET OVERSIGHT

31

STAFFING TRENDS

32

MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM COSTS

33

PROGRAM EVALUATION

34

PROGRAM EVALUATION CASE STUDIES

36

Tools for Benchmarking

37

GETTING STARTED WITH BENCHMARKING38

YEAR-OVER-YEAR GIVING TEMPLATE

39

Appendices40

2013 SURVEY RESPONDENT PROFILE

41

2013 DATA SNAPSHOT: PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRY

42

2013 DATA SNAPSHOT: FINANCIALS INDUSTRY43

RESPONDENT LISTING BY INDUSTRY

44

FOUR-YEAR MATCHED-SET PROFILE46

CALCULATIONS AND DEFINITIONS

46

ABOUT CECP RESEARCH AND MEASUREMENT:TRACKING TRENDS, GUIDING STRATEGIES50

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

3

Snapshot of
Corporate
Giving in 20134

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

2013 DATA SNAPSHOTPOST-RECESSION CORPORATE GIVING INCREASESFOR MAJORITY OF COMPANIESA majority of companies (64%) increased total contributions
from 2010 to 2013. Many companies link giving budgets tobusiness performance—among companies giving at least 10%
more since 2010, median revenues increased by 11% while
revenues fell 3% for all other companies. Consumer Staples
led the charge with 92% of companies giving more in 2013
than in 2010. See pages 10 and 11.
MAJORITY OF COMPANIES MATCH EMPLOYEE GIFTSIn 2013, 86% of companies matched employee contributions
to qualifying nonprofit organizations. A majority of those companies (57%) strategically focused matching-gift programson certain cause areas or strategic nonprofit partners. See
pages 26 and 27.
Percentage of Companies Offering Matching Gifts
by Program Type, 2013, N=184

COMPANIES STRIVE TO DO THE BEST
Based on strong demand from CECP companies for more
information about the most charitable companies, Giving in
Numbers this year identifies the minimum giving threshold to
be included in the top quartile of companies giving to social
causes. In 2013, a business had to give at least $53.8 million,
or 1.95% of pre-tax profits, to be in the top 25% of all companies in this study. See page 8.
TOTAL GIVING TO COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT EXPANDED IN RECENT YEARSAggregate giving to Community and Economic Development
initiatives increased by 34% from 2010 to 2013, a higher growthrate than in any other program area. For all companies reporting
program area breakdowns in 2013, Education (comprising both
K-12 and Higher Education) was the most funded program,followed by Health and Social Services and Community andEconomic Development. See pages 18 and 19.
Program Area Allocations, Average Percentages, 2013, N=181

86%

Offering At Least One Type of Program*

Community & Economic
Development 14%

66%

Year-Round Matching-Gift Policy
Workplace Giving Campaign

56%

Culture & Arts 5%
Disaster Relief 3%

Civic & Public
Affairs 5%

Education, Higher 12%

Other 15%
Dollars for Doers Matching-Gift Policy
Disaster-Relief Matching-Gift Policy

54%

Education, K-12 16%
Health & Social
Services 27%

42%

Environment 3%

Note: See page 48 for descriptions of each program area.

*Based on full Giving in Numbers sample of 261 companies.

GIVING TYPES SHIFT FROM FOUNDATIONS TOCORPORATE COMMUNITY AFFAIRSCOMPANIES GIVE MORE TO INTERNATIONAL
SOCIAL CAUSES

Companies typically give both from a corporate foundation anddirectly from a corporate account. While 79% of companies
operate a corporate foundation, growth in cash contributions
from 2010 to 2013 came predominantly from Corporate
Community Affairs (CCA) budgets. The average CCA cash
contribution increased by 28% from 2010 to 2013, whereas
foundation cash gifts increased by only 2%. See pages 17 and 31.

Among businesses supporting international end-recipients,
the median international contribution increased by 57%
from $3.11 million in 2010 to $4.88 million in 2013, driven
by the majority of companies in the Industrials, Financials,
and Consumer Staples industries increasing international
contributions. See pages 20 and 21.

CORPORATE GIVING OFFICERS RECOGNIZE VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS AS “MOST ENGAGING”
Corporate giving professionals attending the CECP
Summit in May 2014 ranked Volunteer Time Off as themost effective socially motivated tactic for increasing
employee satisfaction with their company. Employees
are taking notice: the median number of hours volunteeredon company time increased by 37% from 2010 to 2013.
See pages 23 and 24.

70,00050,00045,21147,50635.31%

40,00030,00020,00031.97%

61,93840%37%36.56%

33.53%

34%
31%
28%

10,0000Median # of Hours Volunteered On Company Time (N=28)

55,62360,000

2010

2011

2012

2013

25%

Average Percentage of Employees Volunteering At Least One Hour On Company Time (N=36)

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

5

2013 BENCHMARKING TABLES

INDUSTRY
Companies in the same industry often share philanthropic goals, have overlapping stakeholders, and face similar business challenges.

MedianTotal
Giving (inMillions)

MedianTotal
Givingas a % of
RevenueMedianTotal
Cash
Givingas a % of
RevenueMedianTotal
Givingas a % of
Pre-Tax
ProfitMedianTotal Cash
Givingas a % of
Pre-Tax
ProfitMedianMatching
Gifts
as a % of
Total Cash
GivingMedianTotal
Givingper
Employee

All Companies

N=261$18.46

0.13%

0.09%

1.01%

0.76%

12.32%$644

Fortune 100 Companies

n=62$58.78

0.10%

0.07%

0.81%

0.70%

15.52%$558

Communications

n=11$30.61

0.07%

0.05%

1.10%

0.43%

4.94%

$429

Consumer Discretionary

n=34$14.93

0.09%

0.07%

1.25%

0.80%

12.72%$232

Consumer Staples

n=25$39.22

0.15%

0.08%

1.12%

0.63%

8.93%

$608

Energyn=14$34.49

0.12%

0.09%

0.76%

0.76%

11.88%$2,912Financials

n=55$15.41

0.14%

0.14%

0.96%

0.95%

12.11%$941

Health Care

n=26

$39.02

0.23%

0.08%

1.58%

0.70%

13.30%$681

Industrials

n=26$13.40

0.08%

0.07%

0.76%

0.69%

14.39%$244

Materials

n=18

$9.25

0.07%

0.07%

0.98%

0.80%

14.19%$305

Technology

n=31$13.50

0.19%

0.11%

1.06%

0.59%

17.31%$666

Utilities

n=21$10.81

0.14%

0.13%

1.23%

1.16%

7.80%

$1,092

PRE-TAX PROFIT
While revenue provides a clear expression of a company’s financial size, it is pre-tax profit that indicates the level of discretionary
funds that can be reinvested into the business. However, an individual company’s pre-tax profit can change substantially from one
year to the next, which complicates year-over-year comparisons. While expenses such as rising oil prices affect all peer companies,
other factors affect single companies, such as the closure of an international office or the renegotiation of a vendor contract.

MedianTotal
Giving (inMillions)

MedianTotal
Givingas a % of
RevenueMedianTotal
Cash
Givingas a % of
RevenueMedianTotal
Givingas a % of
Pre-Tax
ProfitMedianTotal Cash
Givingas a % of
Pre-Tax
ProfitMedianMatching
Gifts
as a % of
Total Cash
GivingMedianTotal
Givingper
Employee

All Companies

N=261$18.46

0.13%

0.09%

1.01%

0.76%

12.32%$644

Fortune 100 Companies

n=62$58.78

0.10%

0.07%

0.81%

0.70%

15.52%$558

Pre-Tax Profit > $10 bn

n=26$182.20

0.21%

0.14%

0.86%

0.73%

11.58%$1,037$5 bn < Pre-Tax Profit ≤ $10 bn

n=32$56.70

0.13%

0.09%

0.80%

0.57%

13.52%$665$3 bn < Pre-Tax Profit ≤ $5 bn

n=24$26.22

0.14%

0.11%

0.72%

0.70%

10.81%$623$2 bn < Pre-Tax Profit ≤ $3 bn

n=34$29.01

0.12%

0.09%

1.21%

0.82%

9.03%

$632

$1 bn < Pre-Tax Profit ≤ $2 bn

n=43$10.90

0.11%

0.07%

0.91%

0.58%

12.10%$652$0 bn < Pre-Tax Profit ≤ $1 bn

n=64

$6.19

0.12%

0.08%

1.59%

1.11%

10.05%$545

Pre-Tax Profit ≤ $0

n=13

$11.13

0.09%

0.07%

NA

NA

16.59%$589

Note: Companies with incomplete data for profit, revenue, and/or employee size are included in the applicable calculations to determine the “All Companies” dataof each benchmarking table, but not in the subsequent rows of each benchmarking table.

6

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

2013 BENCHMARKING TABLES CONTINUEDREVENUE
While it is tempting to assume that companies with familiar logos are revenue giants, this is not always the case. Many wellknown companies, particularly those with global brands, may generate less revenue than business-to-business companies that
do not invest in building awareness among consumers. Even companies within the same industry and with similar brand recognition may have very different revenue levels.

MedianTotal
Giving (inMillions)

MedianTotal
Givingas a % of
RevenueMedianTotal
Cash
Givingas a % of
RevenueMedianTotal
Givingas a % of
Pre-Tax
ProfitMedianTotal Cash
Givingas a % of
Pre-Tax
ProfitMedianMatching
Gifts
as a % of
Total Cash
GivingMedianTotal
Givingper
Employee$18.46

0.13%

0.09%

1.01%

0.76%

12.32%$644

All Companies

N=261

Fortune 100 Companies

n=62$58.78

0.10%

0.07%

0.81%

0.70%

15.52%$558

Revenue > $100 bn

n=15$63.85

0.05%

0.05%

0.70%

0.44%

11.95%$494$50 bn < Revenue ≤ $100 bn

n=28$95.84

0.12%

0.08%

1.06%

0.73%

18.42%$671$25 bn < Revenue ≤ $50 bn

n=43$42.63

0.13%

0.09%

1.19%

0.09%

12.24%$665$15 bn < Revenue ≤ $25 bn

n=38$30.43

0.14%

0.13%

0.97%

0.83%

9.03%

$679

$10 bn < Revenue ≤ $15 bn

n=35$11.26

0.10%

0.09%

0.72%

0.65%

9.97%

$601

$5 bn < Revenue ≤ $10 bn

n=45

$8.87

0.12%

0.09%

1.12%

0.86%

13.60%$763

Revenue ≤ $5 bn

n=37

$4.86

0.15%

0.11%

1.43%

1.01%

11.42%$592

EMPLOYEES
Many philanthropic strategies are designed to enhance corporate culture and provide opportunities for employees to become
involved. However, successfully putting theory into practice depends largely on the number of employees at a company andthe types of employees (e.g., hourly vs. salary) engaged in community programs.

MedianTotal
Giving (inMillions)

MedianTotal
Givingas a % of
RevenueMedianTotal
Cash
Givingas a % of
RevenueMedianTotal
Givingas a % of
Pre-Tax
ProfitMedianTotal Cash
Givingas a % of
Pre-Tax
ProfitMedianMatching
Gifts
as a % of
Total Cash
GivingMedianTotal
Givingper
Employee

All Companies

N=261$18.46

0.13%

0.09%

1.01%

0.76%

12.32%$644

Fortune 100 Companies

n=62$58.78

0.10%

0.07%

0.81%

0.70%

15.52%$558

Employees > 100,0000

n=51$63.85

0.12%

0.08%

1.04%

0.84%

14.48%$361

50,001 ≤ Employees ≤ 100,000

n=39$46.64

0.15%

0.12%

1.07%

0.62%

10.33%$681

30,001 ≤ Employees ≤ 50,000n=40$19.85

0.08%

0.07%

0.70%

0.54%

13.22%$586

20,001 ≤ Employees ≤ 30,000

n=17$23.39

0.22%

0.15%

1.42%

1.15%

10.41%$1,105

10,000 ≤ Employees ≤ 20,000

n=45

$9.77

0.12%

0.11%

0.99%

0.92%

10.05%$664

Employees < 10,000

n=56

$5.52

0.11%

0.08%

0.99%

0.75%

11.88%$1,111

Note: Companies with incomplete data for profit, revenue, and/or employee size are included in the applicable calculations to determine the “All Companies” dataof each benchmarking table, but not in the subsequent rows of each benchmarking table.

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

7

2013 QUARTILE BENCHMARKING

Identifying the Most Generous Companies
CECP, in association with The Conference Board, hashistorically benchmarked corporate giving and employee
engagement programs by identifying medians or averages
and allowing companies to judge how their company
performance compares.
This year, based on demand from companies, we identified
quartiles for the most relevant giving metrics. This tabledisplays the minimum level of giving required to be among
the top 25% of companies for each giving metric. The top
quartile threshold is the value below which three-quartersof the data lie when ranked in ascending order. The bottom
quartile threshold is the value below which one-quarter ofthe data lie when ranked in ascending order.

Total Giving(N=261)

Cash Giving(N=261)

Total Giving as a % of
Revenue (N=241)

Total Giving as a % of
Pre-Tax Profit (N=224)

Top 25% (75th Percentile)$53.8 Million$35.5 Million

0.22%

1.95%

Bottom 25% (25th Percentile)$7.5 Million$5.5 Million

0.06%

0.60%

Industry Quartile Comparisons
The minimum total giving amount required for a company to be in its industry’s top quartile is:ii Communications (n=11): $79.0 million
ii Consumer Discretionary (n=34): $26.3 million
ii Consumer Staples (n=25): $107.9 million
ii Energy (n=14): $190.1 million
ii Financials (n=55): $52.2 million
ii Health Care, Non-Pharmaceutical (n=19): $50.9 million

ii Health Care, Pharmaceutical (n=7): $1.4 billion
ii Industrials (n=26): $33.9 million
ii Materials (n=18): $33.7 million
ii Technology (n=31): $55.6 million
ii Utilities (n=21): $19.4 million

Pharmaceutical companies accounted for approximately $7.5 billion in total product donations in 2013, driving the quartile
threshold higher than all other industries. (See page 42 for details on Pharmaceutical contributions.)

Regional Cash Quartile Benchmarking
Companies based outside of the United States were required
to make the highest cash contributions to earn a spot in the
top quartile:ii International Companies (n=21): $92.9 million
ii U.S. Midwest-Based Companies (n=61): $34.7 million
ii U.S. Northeast-Based Companies (n=76): $33.7 million
ii U.S. South-Based Companies (n=60): $32.5 million
ii U.S. West-Based Companies (n=43): $22.0 million

8

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

Among U.S. states with a minimum of eight companies participating in the Giving in Numbers Survey, the minimum cash
contributions required to be in the top quartile in 2013 were:
State

Top Quartile

MN (n=14)$63.6 Million

CA (n=32)$54.9 Million

IL (n=11)$46.2 Million

NJ (n=9)$42.6 Million

NY (n=39)$40.2 Million

VA (n=9)$38.1 Million

TX (n=17)$28.8 Million

CT (n=11)$25.3 Million

Corporate
Giving Trends
in Context
K E Y F I N D I N GS I N TH I S S EC TI O N :Post-Recession Corporate
Giving Increases for
Majority of Companies

In-Kind Gifts Drive Largest
Giving Increases from2012 to 2013

Giving Expected to
Increase Modestly
in 2014

Median revenues increased ineight of ten industries from2010 to 2013 and a majority of companies increased
both total contributions (64%of companies) and giving as apercentage of revenue (66% ofcompanies). Total contributions
rose year-over-year throughout the period, with the largest
increases seen in 2011 and thesmallest increases in 2013.

Non-cash offerings of products or Pro Bono Services
were the main driver of large
increases (10%+) in total giving. Many of America’s largest
companies gave less in 2013
than in the prior year due tovery large, one-time contributions to Superstorm Sandy
recovery efforts in 2012.

A majority of companies basedin the American Northeast
expect giving to increase from2013 to 2014, while companies in each of the other U.S.
Census Bureau regions wereless confident. Despite recent
gains in non-cash contributions, more companies expect
giving increases to be driven bydirect corporate or foundation
cash contributions in 2014.

See pages 10 and 11.

See pages 12 and 13.

See page 15.

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

9CONSUMER CONFIDENCE AND BUSINESS PERFORMANCECONSUMERCONFIDENCECEO CONFIDENCE AND
BUSINESS PERFORMANCECORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS AND
BUSINESS PERFORMANCEThe Conference Board publishes theConsumer Confidence Index® each month
as a barometer of the health of the U.S.
economy from the perspective of theconsumer. The Index assesses not only
perceptions of current conditions but
also expectations for the subsequent six
months and is widely regarded as a leading indicator of the U.S. economy.

The Conference Board andPricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Measureof CEO Confidence™, a quarterly measure,indicates that CEOs are generally as
optimistic as consumers about the stateof the economy.

Companies often link business and economic
performance to corporate giving budgets.
Giving in Numbers: 2014 Edition uses amatched set of 144 companies from 2010
to 2013 to examine trends in corporate
giving and employee engagement since theend of the Great Recession. A majority ofcompanies increased community contributions since 2010, driven by growth in both
cash and in-kind contributions. Consumer
Staples companies led the charge as 92% ofthem increased giving from 2010 to 2013:

As shown in Figure 1, consumer confidence has been on an upward trend since
early 2009, after downward trends in
2000-2003 (instigated by the 2001
recession, the Western energy crisis,
and the September 11th tragedy) as
well as in 2007-2009 (instigated by theGreat Recession). Consumer confidence
increased as Bureau of Labor Statistics
unemployment rates dropped in eachyear since the peak of 9.6% in 2010.
According to Lynn Franco, Director of
Economic Indicators and Surveys at The
Conference Board, events like the debtceiling crisis, fiscal cliff, and government
shutdown had a temporary negative
impact on consumer confidence in recent
years, but overall confidence in the U.S.
economy is increasing.

This year’s Giving in Numbers Survey
found that eight out of ten industries
increased median revenues from 2010
to 2013. This improvement in businessperformance could help to explain thebuoyant projections among CEOs:

Industry

Percentage
Changein Median
Revenues
from 2010
to 2013

Industry

Percentage
of Companies
Increasing
Givingfrom 2010
to 2013

Communications, n=6+13%

Consumer Staples, n=12

92%

Consumer Discretionary, n=15

+2%

Industrials, n=1173%

Consumer Staples, n=12

+14%

Health Care, n=21

71%

Energy, n=8-19%

Materials, n=6

67%

Financials, n=32

+3%

Energy, n=8

63%

Health Care, n=21

+5%

Financials, n=35

63%

Industrials, n=11

+19%

Technology, n=19

58%

Materials, n=6+5%

Consumer Discretionary, n=17

53%

Technology, n=18

+26%

Communications, n=6

50%

Utilities, n=9-2%

Utilities, n=9

44%

FIGURE 1
The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index®, 2000 to mid-2014

160(Index, 1985=100)

140 _
120 _
August
2014

100 _
80 _
60 _
40 _
20 _
0
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Consumer Confidence Index®
Sources: The Conference Board, Nielsen, TNS

10

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

GIVING AT THE COMPANY LEVEL
GIVING TRENDS FROM2010 TO 2013

YEAR-BY-YEAR ANALYSIS

A majority (64%) of companies increased
corporate contributions to 501(c)(3)organizations, or the international equivalent, from 2010 to 2013 (N=144). As
illustrated in Figure 2, more than a thirdof companies increased contributions by
25% or more during this period. These
companies grew their total in-kind gifts(predominantly product donations and
Pro Bono Services) by 66% and cash giftsby 25% (n=50).
Giving and business performanceincreased together; profits increased for
59% of companies that gave 10% or moresince 2010 (n=72). Median revenues
among that same group increased by
11% and decreased by 3% for all othercompanies (n=66). Companies withincreasing contributions budgets oftenalign their giving with business priorities,
so it’s unsurprising to see a trend toward
companies funding social causes from
corporate accounts, rather than foundations. (See page 17 for details on giving
trends by type of contribution.)

Among companies giving at least 10%
more in 2013 than 2010, median total
giving increased in each year (n=75):
MedianGivingNORMALIZEDGIVING CHANGESMedian giving as a percentage of revenue
steadily increased from 2010 to 2013
(n=138):% Change inMedian Giving

Median Giving
as a % of Revenue

2010$22.1 Million

2010

0.125%

2011$26.8 Million

+21%

2011

0.134%

2012$31.3 Million

+17%

2012

0.138%

2013$33.1 Million

+6%

2013

0.141%For all other companies, median total
giving decreased each year (n=69):
MedianGiving% Change inMedian Giving

2010$26.6 Million

2011$25.4 Million

-5%

2012

$25.2 Million

-1%

2013

$23.8 Million-6%

The year 2013 saw the largest marginalchange by companies that decreased
giving and the smallest marginal change
by companies that increased giving. This
indicates that 2013 was a relatively slow
year for corporate philanthropy.

This upward trend indicates that the
expansion of community support outpaced business growth since the endof the Great Recession. CECP and The
Conference Board are encouraged by thefact that 66% of companies increased
giving as a percentage of revenue from2010 to 2013 (n=138), exemplifying that
corporate community engagement is
widely considered a sound business strategy among the world’s largest companies.
Giving as a percentage of pre-tax profit
increased slightly from 1.03% in 2010 to
1.04% in 2013 (n=122).

FIGURE 2
Distribution of Companies by Changes in Total Giving Between 2010 and 2013, Inflation-Adjusted,
Matched-Set Data
Total Giving Decreased for 30% of Companies
from 2010 to 2013

Total Giving Increased for 64% of Companies
from 2010 to 2013

Percentage of Companies

35%

17%
10%

10%

12%

10%
6%

Decreasedby more than25%

Decreased
Between
10% and 25%

Decreased
Between
2% and 10%

Flat

Increased
Between
2% and 10%

Increased
Between
10% and 25%

Increasedby more than
25%
N=144

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

11

TRENDS IN CASH AND NON-CASH GIVINGCOMPONENTS OFTOTAL GIVING

RISE IN AGGREGATE
GIVINGNOTES ON NON-CASH
CONTRIBUTIONSThe Giving in Numbers Survey collects
total contributions in three giving types:

Among companies responding to the
Giving in Numbers Survey each year from2010 to 2013, aggregate total giving (i.e.,the sum of all giving in the sample) roseby 15% to $17.55 billion in 2013 (N=144):

While non-cash contributions accountfor the majority of giving growth in thepast decade, approximately a quarter ofcompanies making these gifts in 2013 did
not provide in-kind contributions in eachyear of the matched set (2010 to 2013).
Among companies that did provide a
consistent flow of non-cash contributionsin this period, the median in-kind donation
decreased by 16% from $8.42 million in2010 to $7.04 million in 2013 (N=70).

ii Direct Cash includes cash giving from

corporate headquarters or regional
offices;ii Foundation Cash includes cash giving

Aggregate
Cash
Giving(Billions)Aggregate
Non-Cash
Giving(Billions)

Total
Aggregate
Giving(Billions)

2010

$5.96

$9.26

$15.22

2011

$6.09

$10.21$16.30

2012

$5.97

$11.33$17.30

2013

$6.18

$11.37$17.55from the corporate foundation; andii Non-Cash includes product donations,

Pro Bono Service, and other non-cash
contributions (e.g., office equipment)
assessed at Fair Market Value.
A balanced giving budget incorporating cash and in-kind contributions helps
companies form meaningful community
partnerships. Nonprofits rely on consistent
cash funding to pay overhead costs andexpand important services, so cash contributions are always in high demand. At thesame time, products and professional services are also valuable to nonprofit partners. Companies often have the expertiseand resources necessary to provide suchimportant in-kind resources at scale.

Non-cash contributions accounted formore than 90% ($2.11 billion) of theaggregate giving increase between 2010
and 2013. Of all companies responding to
the Giving in Numbers Survey, 62% reported
non-cash contributions (N=261), up from
58% from the 2010 sample (N=185).

This indicates that the total growth in
non-cash contributions is driven in part bylarge, one-time contributions rather thanby sustained growth by the same companies, year-over-year. While non-cash gifts
are often strategically directed to specificcauses, sometimes companies simply havetoo much product on-hand and wish to
direct it in a socially responsible manner.
Retailers and product manufacturers
continually seek to refine their operations,which may result in less “excess” productavailable for donation in subsequent years.

FIGURE 3
Percentage Change by Funding Type for Companies with Increased and Decreased Giving
Between 2010 and 2013, Inflation-Adjusted
Companies that Decreased Giving from2010 to 2013 (n=43)

Companies that Increased Giving from2010 to 2013 (n=92)
63%

23%

4%

-14%
-24%

-22%
Direct Cash

12

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

Foundation CashNon-CashINSIGHTS FROMSURVEY RESPONDENTS

REASONS FOR INCREASED GIVING“Total giving increased primarily
due to product donations, which
increased from 2012 to 2013”

The most common reasons for companies
giving significantly more (10%+) in 2013 than in2012 included:“Our company closed stores,
which resulted in excess inventory
available for donation”

ii INCREASED IN-KIND GIVING, INCLUDING“Non-cash giving increased becauseof new Pro Bono Services deliveredin 2013”

PRO BONO SERVICES(See pages 12 and 25.)ii MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS
The most common reasons for companies giving
slightly more (between 2% and 10%) in 2013 thanin 2012 included:ii IMPROVED BUSINESS PERFORMANCE(See page 10.)ii INCREASED PARTICIPATION IN
MATCHING-GIFT PROGRAMS(See pages 26 and 27.)ii MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS“The biggest jump was related tobusiness growth (and came fromour business units)”“The increase in giving was due to thesuccessful results of the company
during the previous three years, as
our budget is driven by the rolling
three-year EBIT”“A major effort to promote employee
participation in the matching-giftprogram also led to increases in thecorporate match amounts”

REASONS FOR DECREASED GIVING

INSIGHTS FROMSURVEY RESPONDENTS

The most common reasons for companies giving
slightly less (between 2% and 10%) in 2013 thanin 2012 included:“The amount of non-cash donations
was unusually high in 2012, due toour in-kind support for Hurricane
Sandy relief”

ii ABNORMALLY HIGH GIVING LEVELSIN 2012—OFTEN IN SUPPORT OF
SUPERSTORM SANDY
ii STRATEGICALLY TRANSITIONING
AWAY FROM CAUSE AREAS(See page 19.)
The most common reasons for companies
giving significantly less (10%+) in 2013 than in2012 included:ii COMPANY-WIDE COST REDUCTIONS
ii STRATEGICALLY TRANSITIONING AWAY

FROM CAUSE AREAS (See page 19.)ii CORPORATE DIVESTITURES“Transitioning to strategic philanthropic
initiatives”“A decrease in 2013 giving primarily
stems from an unforeseen increasein giving in 2012 that was related
to natural disasters and tragic
events...such as: Hurricane Sandy,
the Sandy Hook Elementary School
shootings, etc.”“Overall, giving decreased due tosignificant expense reductions
required by the company in thesecond half of the year (e.g., job
and budget reductions)”“Budgets for all areas of the company
have been reduced. We anticipate thatas the company becomes more profitable our giving is likely to increase”

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

13

TRENDS AMONG AMERICA’S LARGEST 100 COMPANIESFORTUNE MAGAZINE’S TOP 100
SURVEY RESPONDENTS

FORTUNE 100 CONTRIBUTIONSFALL FROM 2012 TO 2013

FORTUNE 100 CASHCONTRIBUTIONSEach year, Fortune Magazine ranks
America’s 500 largest companies according to revenue. This section of Giving in
Numbers identifies trends among 62 of
the largest 100 companies (F100) that
responded to the survey, allowing us to
examine how America’s biggest corporations give back to their communities.

For the first time in the four-year matchedset (2010-2013), median total giving
decreased: from $66.29 million in 2012
to $62.94 million in 2013 (N=52). Several
F100 companies have begun better aligning their corporate giving focus with theirbusiness strategy, resulting in a transition
away from unaligned partnerships. Several
survey respondents cited this as a reason
for the decrease in giving.

As shown in Figure 4, F100 companies
often give more than smaller companies—
but the largest companies are not always
the most generous. Among all companies,
52% of F100 companies were featured in
the top quartile for total giving, while 61%
were in the top quartile for cash giving.
The median cash contribution for F100
companies was $47.7 million in 2013
(n=62), compared to $10.2 million for allother companies (n=199), indicating thatthe largest companies often provide themost cash.

The revenue threshold for the 2013 F100
ranking was $31.2 billion, approximately
3% higher than the 2012 cutoff:
Median Profile Statistics of F100
Companies Participating in the Giving in
Numbers Survey (N=62)
Revenue$56.4 Billion

Pre-Tax Profit$6.7 Billion

Number of Employees

95,120

Giving as a %of Revenue

0.10%

Giving as a %of Pre-Tax Profit

0.81%

Cash Giving as a %of Pre-Tax Profit

0.70%

Since 2010, total F100 giving toCommunity and Economic Development
increased by 33% and giving to Higher
Education increased by 26%. Giving fromthese same companies to Culture andArts decreased by 27% over the same
period (N=31).
Many F100 companies noted that the2012 giving spike shown in Figure 4 wasan anomaly, driven by heavy contributions
to the Superstorm Sandy recovery. This
spike was particularly acute for companies
with employees in the New York and New
Jersey region.

To be among the top quartile of F100
companies for cash contributions in 2013,
a company had to give $102.2 million. A
majority (65%) of F100 companies haveincreased cash contributions since 2010,
while 10% gave the same amount and 25%
decreased their cash contributions (N=52).

FIGURE 4Median Total Giving for Fortune 100 Companies and All Other Companies, Inflation-Adjusted,
Matched-Set Data
Fortune 100 Median Giving (N=52)$66.29$60.01$61.86All Other Companies Median Giving (N=92)$62.94$17.36$17.62$16.86$ Millions$19.902010

14

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

2011

2012

2013

N=144

PREDICTIONS FOR 2014 GIVING LEVELSNEAR-TERMEXPECTATIONSASSESSING WHERE GIVING
WILL INCREASECONCLUDINGTHOUGHTSThe Giving in Numbers Survey asked
respondents to forecast the expected
percentage change of their company’s
total contributions from 2013 to 2014.
Respondents could choose from seven
ranges, as shown in Figure 5 (note thatanalysis omitted respondents who selected“Not able to estimate at this time”).

At the CECP Summit in May 2014, themajority of giving professionals indicatedthat more than 20% of their company’s giving went to recipients in their
headquarters state. The percentage ofcompanies headquartered in each U.S.
Census Bureau region expecting giving toincrease in 2014 are:Nearly half the respondents expect nochange in 2014 giving levels while 38%of companies expect giving to increase.
Though non-cash giving has driven significant increases in aggregate contributions in recent years, more companies
expect an increase in cash gifts (direct
corporate and foundation cash) in 2014
than in non-cash contributions. Two cause
areas, Higher Education and Health andSocial Services, could have a strong year
in 2014, based on the fact that these twoareas were supported more in 2013 bycompanies that expect to increase theirgiving than by companies that expect todecrease their giving.

ii Northeast: 52% (n=44)

As shown earlier in this section, consumer and CEO confidence have grownconsistently since the low of the GreatRecession, signaling an improving economic outlook. The Giving in Numbers
data show that giving budgets tend toincrease with improved business performance, so if increases in consumer
and CEO confidence persist, it’s likelythat corporate giving will continue andperhaps also increase as well.

ii South: 38% (n=29)
ii Midwest: 25% (n=36)
ii West: 25% (n=16)

Consumer Discretionary firms were themost optimistic about future giving,with 62% of companies expecting an
increase in 2014 (n=13). Industrials was
the next most optimistic industry, with53% (n=19). Utilities firms were the least
optimistic, with only 18% of companies
expecting giving to increase in 2014.

CEOs recognize the important role thatbusinesses play in solving complex social
problems. At CECP’s Board of Boards
roundtable in February 2014, attending
CEOs identified companies and consumers as the top two groups that will leadprogress toward long-term societal
improvement (N=39). It is therefore no
surprise that a majority of companies are
now measuring (or seeking to measure)the societal outcomes of their grantmaking. See page 34.

FIGURE 5
Percentage of Companies Predicting How 2014 Total Giving Will Compare to 2013 Levels
48%

28%

6%

8%

6%

1%
Decrease by
more than 25%

2%
Decrease
11% to 25%

Decrease
2% to 10%

No change
expected

Increase
2% to 10%

Increase
11% to 25%

Increase by
more than 25%

N=130

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

15

Grant Portfolio
Breakdown
K E Y F I N D I N GS I N TH I S S EC TI O N :Corporate
Cash Grows

Service Companies Increase
Non-Cash Giving

Community and Economic
Development Support Grows

Between 2010 and 2013,
companies increased cash giving
directly from corporate accounts
while the proportion of cash
giving from corporate foundations declined. Companies havestarted to align giving with business priorities, and directing cash
contributions through corporate
giving budgets often provides
greater flexibility for companies
to decide which organizations
they want to support to meettheir grantmaking goals.

From 2010 to 2013, Service
companies’ average noncash giving as a percentage
of total giving increased from14.95% to 17.74% (n=82). For
Manufacturing companies,
it decreased from 29.12% to25.47% (n=62).

As companies prioritizedcause areas through more
focused grantmaking, supportof Community and Economic
Development increased dramatically from 2010 to 2013, while
support of Culture and Arts
declined during the same period.

See page 17.

See page 19.

Education is Top
Program Area

International Giving Grows

See page 17.

Educational organizations
received the highest average
proportion of funding from
corporations in 2013, edging
out Health and Social Services
and Community and Economic
Development (N=181).
See page 18.

Among companies supportinginternational end-recipients, themedian international contribution increased by 57% from2010 ($3.11 million) to 2013($4.88 million). Manufacturing
companies drove this increase,in particular by giving more toenvironmental causes in theirinternational locations.
See page 21.

16

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITIONA MIX OF FUNDING TYPESTYPES OFCORPORATE GIVING

CASH GIVING
TRENDSNON-CASH GIVING AMONGSERVICE COMPANIES

Figure 6 shows the average giving budget
breakdown by industry. All recipients ofcorporate giving in the Giving in Numbers
Survey must be 501(c)(3) organizations
or an international equivalent. The survey
recognizes three types of giving:

The table below shows the 2010-2013
average percentages, by funding type, ofthe matched set (N=144):

Companies deploy valuable non-cash
resources and engage employees in ways
private foundations or individual donors
cannot. In 2013, 64% of all companies
gave at least one in-kind gift, the highest
percentage of companies since 2009.

ii Direct Cash: Cash giving from corpo-

rate headquarters or regional offices.
ii Foundation Cash: Cash contributions

from the corporate foundation. Only
funds originating from the corporation,
through an endowment or passthrough, are included.
ii Non-Cash: Product donations, Pro

Bono Service, and other non-cash
contributions (e.g., office equipment)
assessed at Fair Market Value.
Total giving figures do not include thevalue of employee volunteerism, management and program costs, or funds
contributed by other companies, individuals, or foundations.

DirectCash

Foundation
Cash

NonCash2010

45.51%

33.44%

21.05%

2011

45.98%

32.98%

21.04%

2012

46.59%

32.65%

20.76%

2013

47.32%

31.61%

21.07%As shown in Figure 6, Service companies gave nearly as much in non-cash
contributions, relative to total giving, as
Manufacturing companies. From 2010
to 2013, Service companies’ averagenon-cash giving as a percentage of total
giving increased from 14.95% to 17.74%(n=82), while for Manufacturing companies it decreased from 29.12% to 25.47%(n=62). Retailers increasing product donations and professional service companies
increasing Pro Bono Services drove noncash growth in the Service sector.

Cash contributions shifted from foundations to corporate budgets. This shift isreflective of the broader industry trend ofcompanies aligning giving practices withcorporate strategies. Directing contributions from the corporate budget gives
companies more flexibility as to whichorganizations and causes they fund, as themoney is not subject to the self-dealing
regulations that foundations face. Noncash contributions also come from thecorporate account. (See page 31 for more
information on budget sources.)

FIGURE 6
Industry Breakdown of Total Giving by Funding Type, 2013, Average Percentages
All Companies

N=261

48%

33%

19%

Manufacturing

n=111

50%

30%

20%

Service

n=150

36%

18%

Communications

n=11

Consumer Discretionary

n=34

Consumer Staples

n=25

Energyn=14

Financials

n=55

Health Care

n=26

Industrials

n=26

Materials

n=18

Technology

n=31

Utilities

n=21

46%
31%

24%

45%

47%

26%

42%

27%

23%

35%

74%

8%

47%

49%

33%

23%

4%
44%

53%

45%

2%

56%

38%

6%

41%

33%
65%

Direct Cash

18%

Foundation Cash

26%
31%

4%

Non-Cash

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

17

GIVING BY PROGRAM AREA
IDENTIFYING THE MOSTPOPULAR CAUSE AREAS

CASH-GIVING
COMPARISONSTOP CASH FUNDERSBY DOLLAR VALUE

A company’s giving budget usually funds
a range of cause areas. Figure 7 showsthat companies on average direct thehighest proportion of their grants (28%)
to Education (K-12 and Higher), followed
closely by Health and Social Services (27%).

Educational and Health and Social
Services causes received the largest
median cash contributions in 2013:

The industries providing the highest 2013
median cash amount for each program
area are shown below (sample sizes correlate to those stated in Figure 7):

Large in-kind gifts from pharmaceutical companies and grocers drove $6.4
billion (or 38% of all giving) in aggregate
total gifts to Health and Social Services
organizations, the highest total any cause
area received.
In 2013, 96% of companies supported
Educational causes and 91% supported
Health and Social Services. Culture andArts ranked third, with 83% of companies
directing funds that way—a surprisingstatistic given that the average company
budget gave only 5% to arts initiatives.
This indicates that many companies support the arts with small dollar amounts.

ii Total Education (n=173): $3.4 million
ii Health and Social Services (n=164):

Program Area

Industry /Highest Median
Dollar Amount

Civic &
Public Affairs

Energy /$0.76 Million

Community &Economic Development

Financials /$3.79 Million

Culture &Arts

Energy /$1.07 Million

DisasterReliefEnergy /$0.80 Million

Education:
HigherIndustrials /$3.21 Million

Education:
K-12

Materials /$3.21 Million

Environment

Energy /$2.54 Million

Health &Social Services

Health Care /$7.47 Million$3.0 million
ii Community and Economic Development(n=143): $1.8 million
ii Culture and Arts (n=151): $0.61 million
ii Civic and Public Affairs (n=121):$0.60 million
ii Environment (n=127): $0.37 million
ii Disaster Relief (n=143): $0.22 million

To be among the top quartile of companies
that give cash to Educational causes in
2013, a company had to give a minimum of$10.1 million to these programs (n=173).

Note that the average percentages in
Figure 7 are for total giving to that cause
area, including in-kind contributions.

FIGURE 7

Environment

Health &Social Services

Other

5%

Education:
K-12

14%

Education:
Higher5%

Disaster Relief

Culture & Arts

N=181

Community &Economic
Development

All Companies

Civic &
Public Affairs

Program Area Allocations by Industry, 2013, Average Percentages

3%

12%

16%

3%

27%

15%

Communications

n=8

5%

9%

4%

2%

6%

28%

8%

20%

18%

Consumer Discretionary

n=24

7%

10%

4%

5%

10%

16%

2%

27%

19%

Consumer Staples

n=19

3%

26%

3%

1%

8%

6%

4%

38%

11%

Energy

n=10

4%

17%

4%

2%

23%

13%

5%

14%

18%

Financials

n=39

5%

23%

8%

3%

9%

19%

1%

15%

17%

Health Care

n=18

3%

5%

2%

4%

8%

3%

0%

72%

3%

Industrials

n=20

4%

9%

5%

3%

20%

17%

3%

28%

11%

Materials

n=11

2%

11%

7%

1%

14%

16%

7%

25%

17%

Technology

n=16

2%

4%

4%

2%

17%

34%

2%

11%

24%

Utilities

n=16

7%

16%

9%

1%

14%

12%

9%

20%

12%

Note: Relative to industry peers, the industry providing the highest percentage of giving to a particular program area is highlighted.

18

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITIONGIVING BY PROGRAM AREA CONTINUEDSHARPER FOCUS ON
STRATEGIC GRANTMAKINGREBALANCING GIVING IN
THE NONPROFIT SECTOR

CASH CHANGES BYPROGRAM AREA

For the last several years, companies
around the globe have become more strategic in their grantmaking, often aligning
giving and employee engagement programs with long-term business strategies.

As companies focus their grantmaking,they tend to prioritize cause areas. The
Great Recession of 2008 and 2009 left
corporate grantmakers to wonder how
they are best equipped to help their communities recover, which is good for society
and for businesses. Perhaps unsurprisingly,
total support of Economic and Community
Development organizations has increased
by 34% since the Great Recession, as manyof these programs support marginalized
communities through economic empowerment programs both in the U.S. and abroad.
Since 2010, funding for this program area
has grown more than any other.

Cash contributions are always in highdemand in the nonprofit community;
aggregate cash giving increased by 3.7%
from 2010 to 2013. However, program
areas were affected in different ways
(N=80):As one program area thrives, anotherdeclines, as evidenced by the 20%
decrease in total giving to Culture andArts from 2010 to 2013 (foundation
cash giving declined 25%), although thesteep year-over-year declines subsided
between 2012 and 2013 (N=80).

ii Education, K-12: -5.28%

The data show that individual grants are
getting larger (the median grant size
increased by 43% from 2010 to 2013,n=38), and corporate grantmakers areworking with fewer nonprofit organizations (the median number of nonprofit
partnerships per grantmaker fell 21%
from 2010 to 2013, n=38). This analysis
excluded matching-gift grant recipients.
Measuring social outcomes is an increasingly important practice in corporate
philanthropy. Many corporate funders
believe that focusing efforts to specificcause areas will result in deeper impact.

ii Community and Economic

Development: +29.44%
ii Other: +20.07%
ii Education, Higher: +12.09%
ii Environment: +5.73%
ii Health and Social Services: -2.58%
ii Civic and Public Affairs: -3.70%
ii Disaster Relief: -11.83%
ii Culture and Arts: -19.18%

Growth in “Other” contributions was
driven in part by expanding matching-giftprograms. The small declines in Healthand Social Services, Civic and Public
Affairs, and K-12 Education were offset
by increases in non-cash giving.

FIGURE 8
Recipient Organizations per Contributions FTE and Grant Size, 2010-2013, Medians, Inflation-Adjusted$57,000$47,000

80

66$45,60470

63

60$37,000

52

50

50$34,606$27,000$31,792$31,45940$17,000

30
2010

2011
# of Recipients per FTE

2012

2013

Grant Size

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

19

INTERNATIONAL GIVING
ALLOCATIONS BY
INDUSTRYREGIONAL
CONTRIBUTIONSINTERNATIONALPROGRAM TYPE

In the Giving in Numbers Survey, “international” giving refers to contributions
made to end-recipients in all countries
outside of the company’s “domestic” orheadquarters country.

In 2013, 92% of responding companies were based in the United States(N=261). Figure 9 details the regional
breakdown of international contributions
from U.S.-based companies to endrecipients outside of North America. The
geographic regions are defined on pages
47 and 48. International contributions
include grants to international nonprofitsand domestic nonprofits that support international affairs. According to
Giving USA Foundation’s Giving USA: The
Annual Report on Philanthropy for theYear 2013 (2014), the rate at which corporations have increased gifts directly tointernational nonprofits in recent years
is higher than the rate at which they’ve
increased gifts to U.S.-based nonprofits
supporting international affairs.

The figures in the table below show theaverage breakdown by program area ofinternational giving portfolios (N=95):

Companies tend to give where they dobusiness or where they have significant operations. Approximately 79%
of Manufacturing companies earned
at least 20% of their revenues abroad(n=34), compared with 41% of Service
companies (n=46).

Manufacturers tend to support environmental causes through grantmaking at
a higher rate abroad than in their homemarket. Among Manufacturers thatprovided program-type breakdowns foroverall giving and international giving,on average 14.45% of international
giving budgets supported environmental
causes, compared with 6.74% of overallbudgets (N=30).

The figures below show the average percentage of total giving that each industry
directed internationally (among companies
that made international contributions):ii All Companies (N=113): 22%
ii Energy (n=7): 40%
ii Consumer Staples (n=11): 36%
ii Industrials (n=13): 23%
ii Materials (n=10): 22%
ii Communications (n=7): 21%
ii Technology (n=16): 20%
ii Financials (n=24): 20%
ii Health Care (n=10): 19%
ii Consumer Discretionary (n=12): 14%

Energy companies typically have larger
operations in global markets than othercompanies do, which explains why theywould dedicate a higher average amountto international end-recipients thanwould other industries.

Average International
Program Area Breakdown
Civic & Public Affairs

3%

Community &Economic Development

17%

Culture & Arts

4%

Disaster Relief

12%

Education: Higher

8%

Education: K-12

18%

Environment

6%

Health & Social Services

20%

Other

12%

FIGURE 9
Average Percentage Regional Breakdown of Total Giving for Companies
Headquartered in the United States, 2013

Service

n=49

Manufacturing

n=48

13%

21%

10%

33%

Global (Not region-specific)
i20

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

22%

Asia & the PacificMiddle East & Africa

20%

16%

Europe

21%

4%

20%

15%

Latin America & the Caribbean

Breakdown Unavailable

5%

INTERNATIONAL GIVING CONTINUEDYEAR-OVER-YEAR
CHANGESINTERNATIONALPROGRAM TYPEADVANCING THE
GLOBAL STANDARD

Among companies that gave internationally in 2013, the median international contribution increased from $3.11 million in2010 to $4.88 million in 2013, as shownin Figure 10. Manufacturing companies
drove this trend, increasing average international giving as a percentage of total
giving from 20.46% in 2010 to 22.21%
in 2013 (n=32).

Companies use many factors to determine international giving budgets,
including forward-looking inputs (e.g.,
growth opportunities abroad), andcurrent business inputs (e.g., the percentage of revenue that is earned internationally or the company’s international
employee footprint).

Recent increases in global funding indicate that giving will continue to follow
revenues as companies grow aroundthe world. Country-specific regulations,such as the India Companies Bill, which
requires the largest companies to give
2% of profits to charity, make a global
valuation standard extremely importantfor companies operating abroad.

Industrials, Financials, and Consumer
Staples companies led the charge from2012 to 2013, with at least 63% ofcompanies in each industry giving more
to international end-recipients. Service
companies increased giving to Disaster
Relief, most notably to Super Typhoon
Haiyan recovery efforts in the Philippines.
Increases from Manufacturing companies
were less reactive and focused on supportof community development and education programs.

Companies that operate globally typicallygive a higher proportion of total gifts
to international end-recipients. Below
are the average international giving (asa percentage of total giving) levels by
revenue-composition tier:International
Revenues
Comprise:International
Giving as a
% of Total
GivingLess than 10% of
Total Revenues (n=34)

2%

Between 10% and 50% of
Total Revenues (n=25)

14%

More than 50% of
Total Revenues (n=21)

25%

In 2011, CECP partnered with Deloitte
to create the leading standard for defining a corporate charitable contribution,
as each country has its own laws andstandards. After a transition year in2015, CECP and The Conference Board
will fully convert to this new guidancefor Giving in Numbers: 2016 Edition,building on the recent success of CECP’s
research publication on global giving
trends, Giving Around the Globe.

FIGURE 10
Percentage of Companies by Changes in Funding to International Recipients, Matched-Set DataMedian International Gift Increased from
$3.11 Million in 2010 to $3.61 Million
in 2011Percentage of Companies

40%

Median International Gift Increased from$3.61 Million in 2011 to $3.98 Million
in 2012Median International Gift Increased from$3.98 Million in 2012 to $4.88 Million
in 2013

36%
48%
10%

7%
9%

53%

2010 to 2011

Increased International Giving

54%
43%

2011 to 2012

International Giving Remained Flat2012 to 2013

Decreased International Giving
N=58

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

21

Employee andStakeholder
Engagement
K E Y F I N D I N GS I N TH I S S EC TI O N :Company-Wide Days ofService Most Successful

Pro Bono Service Expands
to All Industries

Utilities Employees
Volunteer the Most

Company-Wide Days ofService were the most successful volunteer programs fordomestic employees, followed
by Dollars for Doers and PaidRelease-Time programs. As forvolunteer programs offered tointernational employees, Flexible
Scheduling programs were identified as the most successful.

For the first time since Giving
in Numbers began reportingon employee engagement, Pro
Bono Service programs werereported by at least one company in each industry. Amongcompanies reporting Pro Bono
Service dollar values in 2013,
67% have increased cash contributions since the end of theGreat Recession (N=30).

The average percentage of
Utilities employees volunteering
at least one hour on company
time in 2013 was 42.2%, higher
than in any other industry.

See page 24.

See page 25.

22

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

See page 23.

Year-Round Matching
Gifts Increased
Among companies offering
Year-Round matching gifts since2010, median contributions
increased by 8%. In 2013
Workplace Giving Campaigns
increased by 1% and Dollars forDoers contributions decreased
by 33%. A majority of companies(57%) strategically targeted
matching gifts to predeterminedcause areas or to specificnonprofit partners. See page 27.

EMPLOYEE VOLUNTEERISMTYPES OF VOLUNTEERPROGRAMSTRENDS IN
OFFERINGSThe Giving in Numbers Survey defines aformal employee-volunteer program asa planned, managed effort that seeks tomotivate and enable employees to volunteer under the employer’s sponsorship.

Most companies offer four to six
domestic volunteer programs and one tothree international volunteer programs.
The following programs realized thelargest gains in the percentage ofcompanies offering them in their homemarket (N=100):

In 2013, 204 companies reported having
a formal domestic employee-volunteer
program; 61% of those companies
also offered a volunteer program forinternational employees.
Figure 11 presents the percentage ofcompanies offering each type of service
program, with Dollars for Doers offered
most for domestic employees andEmployee Recognition Awards offered
most for international employees.
CECP encourages companies to partnerwith nonprofit organizations to devise
employee engagement policies that best
meet community needs and businesspriorities.

VOLUNTEER PARTICIPATION
In 2013, the average percentage of
employees volunteering at least one
hour on company time over the courseof the year was 30.7% (N=112). The
median number of hours per participating
employee was six (n=60). The top quartile
had a minimum of 48.5% of employees
volunteering on company time. Amongindustries, Utilities employees volunteered
the most often.

ii Pro Bono Service: Increased from 34%

of companies in 2010 to 50% in 2013.
See page 25.
of companies in 2010 to 59% in 2013.

Average Percentage of Employees
Volunteering At Least One HourOn Company Time in 2013

ii Board Leadership: Increased from 45% of

All Companies, N=112

ii Paid-Release Time: Increased from 51%

companies in 2010 to 50% in 2013.
Among volunteer programs available tointernational employees, the following
programs realized the largest gains (N=55):

30.7%

Utilities, n=9

42.2%

Health Care, n=9

34.9%

Financials, n=36

31.1%

Consumer Discretionary, n=16

31.1%

Materials, n=5

29.6%

Consumer Staples, n=628.0%

ii Pro Bono Service: Increased from 24% ofcompanies in 2010 to 35% in 2013.
ii Paid-Release Time: Increased from 47%

Technology, n=14

25.2%

of companies in 2010 to 58% in 2013.

Industrials, n=8

24.5%

Energy, n=5

21.0%

ii Family Volunteering: Increased from 47%

of companies in 2010 to 53% in 2013.

Communications was excluded due
to a small sample size.

FIGURE 11
Corporate Volunteer Opportunities, 2013, Percentage of Companies Offering Each Program
59%

57%

55%

55%
50%

51% 50%

50%
46%

49%

47%
42%

41%

40%

33%
26%

29%

32%

22%
15%

4%
Dollars for EmployeeDoers
VolunteerAwardsPaidRelease
Time

Flexible
FamilyScheduling Volunteer

CompanyBoard
Wide Day Leadership

Domestic, N=204

Pro Bono
ServiceTeam
GrantsRetireeVolunteer2%

Incentive
Bonus

3%

5%

Volunteer
Sabbatical

International, N=125

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION23

EMPLOYEE VOLUNTEERISM CONTINUEDMEASURING THE VALUE OF
EMPLOYEE VOLUNTEERISM

PAID-RELEASE
TIME EXPANSIONMOST SUCCESSFULPROGRAMS

In 2013, 22% of companies reported that
their company measured the businessvalue of employee volunteerism, often
partnering with Human Resources toinclude questions about job satisfaction in
employee surveys.

Outside of Pro Bono Service, Paid-ReleaseTime volunteer programs were the fastestgrowing engagement program in 2013. Not
surprisingly, employee participation rates
grew from 31.97% in 2010 to 36.56% in2013 (n=36) and median hours volunteeredon company time increased by 37% from45,211 in 2010 to 61,938 in 2013 (n=28).

The Giving in Numbers Survey asks respondents to rate the most successful volunteer
programs for domestic employees andthose based outside of their headquarters
country. Successful volunteer programs
are supported and understood organization-wide and have specific, measurable
goals that are tracked. Please find thefull description of successful programs in
CECP’s Valuation Guide.

Employee volunteerism is crucial tohelping leading companies engage staff,
boost morale, and improve overall job
satisfaction. Corporate leaders attending
the CECP Summit in May 2014 recognized Paid-Release-Time policies as the
top socially motivated tactic for effectively increasing employee satisfaction
with their company, compared to othertypes of programs like matching gifts.
The breakdown of responses from 135
giving professionals asked about the mosteffective socially motivated tactic forincreasing employee satisfaction was:

1. Volunteer Time Off: 47%
2. Year-Round Matching Gifts: 22%
3. Communicating (Internally)
About Signature Programs or
Large Grants: 21%

4. Matching-Gift Events (e.g., United Way

Figure 12 shows the percentage of companies giving employees time away fromwork to volunteer. Financials and Consumer
Discretionary companies were the most
likely to offer Paid-Release-Time programs.
The following table reveals which types ofFinancials companies offered paid time off
to volunteer most often:
Percentage of Companies Offering
Paid-Release TimeAll Other
Financial Companies, n=1080%Institutional
Financial Services, n=9

79%

Insurance, n=1573%Banking, n=12

67%

Campaigns): 9%

In 2013, among companies offering a
Company-Wide Day of Service to domestic
employees, 80% identified this programas among its most successful (N=95). This
80% success rate was higher than that ofany other domestic volunteer program.
Dollars for Doers was second, with a success rate of 71% (N=103), while PaidRelease-Time volunteer programs ranked
third, with a success rate of 68% (N=102).
Among companies offering volunteer
programs to international employees,
Flexible Scheduling programs had thehighest success rate (53%, N=57),
followed by Employee-Volunteer Awards(52%, N=66) and Paid-Release Time
(37%, N=104).

FIGURE 12
Industry Breakdown of Percentage of Companies Offering Paid-Release-Time Volunteer Programs, 2013

24

Financials

n=46

Consumer Discretionary

n=28

Energyn=1060%

Health Care

n=25

60%

Communications

n=11

Technology

n=20

Industrials

n=18

39%

Consumer Staples

n=16

38%

Materials

n=15

33%

Utilities

n=15

33%

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

74%
68%

55%
45%

PRO BONO SERVICE
CHARACTERISTICS OF
PRO BONO SERVICEINDUSTRYCOMPARISONSPRO BONOSERVICE TRENDS

Pro Bono Service is distinct from otherforms of skills-based employee engagement in the following three ways:

Figure 13 shows the average percentage
breakdown of non-cash giving by industryfor 2013. As with past years, Service
companies provided a greater percentage than Manufacturing companies didof non-cash contributions in the form of
Pro Bono Service and “Other Non-Cash”
donations (e.g., office equipment, realestate, or the use of company facilities). Manufacturing companies provided
the majority of non-cash contributions
through product donations.

Pro Bono Service is the fastest-growing
employee engagement program, withhalf of all companies in the matchedset analysis offering programs in 2013,
compared to 34% of companies in 2010. A
majority of new offerings (20 companies,
or 87% of new offerings) were added
in 2012 and 2013, driven by significant
growth across a variety of industries.

1. Commitment: The company is
responsible for staffing the project,ensuring its completion and quality,
and applying the highest professional
standards to the engagement.

2. Professional Services: Participating
employees must use their core job skills
as specified in their official job descriptions. Projects that utilize only a portionof an employee’s core competencies
are considered volunteerism rather
than Pro Bono Service.

The number of companies reporting
Pro Bono Services has increased eachyear since 2010, with companies fromindustries like Energy, Industrials, andUtilities creating new programs duringthat time. It is clear that Pro Bono Service
is no longer just for lawyers, accountants,
and financiers, as every industry was
represented in the 2013 pro bono analysis
for the first time since Giving in Numbers
began reporting on employee engagement programs.

3. Indirect Services: All services must
be provided through a 501(c)(3) organization or an international equivalent.
Based on the inherent differences between
Pro Bono Services and other forms of
employee engagement, Pro Bono Service
is reported in the Giving in Numbers
Survey as non-cash and valued at Fair
Market Value (FMV). CECP’s Valuation
Guide includes instructions for reporting
Pro Bono Service hours at FMV.

In addition, the number of companies
reporting a dollar value for pro bonoprograms increased from 23 companies
in 2010 to 47 companies in 2013 (30Service companies and 17 Manufacturing
companies). In 2013, the median value of
Pro Bono Services was $300,000 (N=47).
It does not appear that the growth in pro
bono offerings offsets cash contributions.
Among companies reporting a dollar
value for pro bono support in 2013, 67%
increased cash contributions from 2010 to2013 (N=30).

FIGURE 13
Breakdown of Non-Cash Giving by Industry, 2013, Average Percentages
All Companies(N=143)

Manufacturing(n=68)

Service(n=75)

Communications(n=7)

Consumer Discretionary(n=25)

Consumer Staples(n=19)

Energy(n=7)

Financials(n=19)

Health Care(n=20)

Industrials(n=11)

Materials(n=8)

Technology(n=19)

Utilities

(n=8)

60%

19%
77%

21%
10%

45%

27%
60%

13%

28%
13%

27%

77%

6%

17%

89%

11%

66%

14%

22%

20%

50%

28%

75%

17%

49%

24%

52%

27%

4%

44%

65%
2%

23%

Product Donations

8%

32%

3%

75%

Pro Bono Service

Other Non-Cash

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

25

MATCHING GIFTS
MATCHING-GIFT PROGRAMSIn 2013, 86% of companies offered at least
one matching-gift program to employees.
Eighty percent of companies offered at least
two types of matching programs (N=184).
Year-Round Policy:
ii Percentage of Companies Offering

Workplace Giving Campaigns:

Who Participated: 3.0% (n=23).

Program To (N=87):
ii Full-Time Employees: 99%
ii Part-Time Employees: 63%
ii International Employees: 29%
ii Retirees: 32%
ii Corporate Board Members: 30%

ii Ratio: The median match in 2013 was

Program To (N=98):
ii Full-Time Employees: 97%
ii Part-Time Employees: 44%
ii International Employees: 36%
ii Retirees: 36%
ii Corporate Board Members: 67%

ii Median Percentage of Employees

ii Median Percentage of Employees

ii Caps: The median cap was $10,000

Who Participated: 9.0% (N=36).
ii Ratio: A majority of companies (87%)

offered a 1:1 match, while somemultiply employee investments with a
1.5x or 2.0x match to specific strategic
partners or cause areas (N=69).
ii Caps: The median cap was $5,000 per

employee (n=68), sometimes with ahigher opportunity for specific cause
areas (typically Higher Education). Caps
ranged from $300 to $50,000.
ii Employee Choice: Among companies

giving predominantly through a YearRound Policy, 49% targeted matches
to predetermined strategic partners orcause areas (n=79).

ii Median Percentage of Employees

ii Percentage of Companies Offering

Who Participated: 30.5% (N=38).
ii Ratio: The majority (67%) of companies

made a 1:1 match. Another common
approach is to match 50% of every dollar
contributed by employees (N=49).
per employee (n=21).
ii Employee Choice: Among companies

giving predominantly through a
Workplace Giving Campaign, 66%
targeted matches to predeterminedstrategic partners or cause areas (n=65).
Dollars for Doers:$10 per hour volunteered (n=37).
ii Caps: Most companies capped Dollars

for Doers at $500 per employee.
ii Employee Choice: Among compa-

nies matching predominantly throughDollars for Doers programs, 57%
targeted matches to predeterminedstrategic partners or cause areas (n=7).
Disaster-Relief Matching Programs:
ii Percentage of Companies Offering

Program To (N=71):
ii Full-Time Employees: 97%
ii Part-Time Employees: 59%
ii International Employees: 55%
ii Retirees: 13%
ii Corporate Board Members: 35%
ii Median Percentage of Employees

Who Participated: 4.5% (n=14).
ii Ratio: Most programs offered a 1:1

ii Percentage of Companies Offering

Program To (N=82):
ii Full-Time Employees: 98%
ii Part-Time Employees: 49%
ii International Employees: 39%
ii Retirees: 22%
ii Corporate Board Members: 15%

match, with some companies offering
more depending on the severity of thedisaster.
ii Caps: Annual caps were typically$5,000 per employee, but this varied
based on the severity of the disasterand its proximity to the company’s
offices and employee bases.

FIGURE 14
Percentage of Companies Offering Matching Gifts by Program Type, 2013
86%
66%
56%

54%
42%

25%

Any Type ofMatching-Gift
Program*Year-Round
PolicyWorkplace
GivingCampaign

Dollars
for Doers

DisasterRelief*Note: The 86% of companies offering any type of matching-gift program is based on the full Giving in Numbers sample of 261 companies.
Descriptions of each program type can be found in CECP’s Valuation Guide.

26

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

Other

N=184

MATCHING GIFTS CONTINUED
MATCHING GIFTSBY INDUSTRYYEAR-OVER-YEAR
TRENDS

ENHANCING EMPLOYEEENGAGEMENT

In 2013, companies delivered a median12.32% of total cash contributions throughmatching gifts (N=184). As illustrated in
Figure 15, Technology companies gave
the highest proportion of matching-gift
contributions as a percentage of total cash
gifts (17.31%). Often, these companies
allowed employees to donate to a
nonprofit of the employee’s choice: 65%
of Technology firms did not limit which
nonprofit organizations are eligible
to receive a matched grant (n=23).
Only 20% of Industrials companies,
the industry that gave the nexthighest amount in terms of matching
percentages, left the program open to
the discretion of employees (n=20).

The median contribution to each program
type changed between 2010 and 2013by the following amounts (including only
companies providing each program typein each year):At its 2014 CEO roundtable, the annual
Board of Boards, CECP asked CEOs whichstakeholder group’s encouragement would
matter most to a decision to expand theircompany’s investment in the community.
The breakdown of responses was:

Consumer Staples and Consumer
Discretionary companies were least likely
to offer matching gifts in 2013, probably due to the difficulty of managing
matching-gift programs among a decentralized workforce. While 69% of retailers
matched employee gifts in 2013, 87%of all other companies offered matching
gifts that same year (N=261).

ii Year-Round Policy: +8% (n=61)

ii Employees: 36%

ii Workplace Giving Campaigns:+1% (n=48)

ii Customers: 22%

ii Dollars for Doers: -33% (n=57)

ii Board of Directors: 22%

The way in which matching-gift trends
affect the overall contributions budget
differs between companies, but it
appears that higher levels of employee
participation through these programs
increases the total contributions made.
Among companies that increased
matching gifts from 2010 to 2013, 72%
increased total giving in the same period
and 74% of those companies increased
total cash contributions as well (N=46).

ii Shareholders: 14%
ii Nonprofit/Community Leaders: 3%
ii Media: 3%ii Government: 0%

These findings echoed The Conference
Board CEO Challenge® 2014, a research
report that rated Human Capital andCustomer Relationships as the top twochallenges facing CEOs around the world.
CEOs clearly value the input of theiremployees and matching-gift programs
offer a unique opportunity to give acompany’s staff a voice in determining
funding priorities.

FIGURE 15
Percentage of Companies Offering Matching Gifts and Median Matching-Gift Contributions
as a Percentage of Total Cash Giving, Industry Breakdown, 2013
95%

93%

93%

91%

89%

88%

88%

87%
72%

7.80%

Utilities(n=21)

11.88%

12.11%

14.19%

13.30

14.39%

Materials(n=18)

Health Care(n=26)

Industrials(n=26)

17.31%
8.93%

4.94%

Energy(n=14)

Financials(n=55)

Communications(n=11)

Technology(n=31)

Consumer
Staples(n=25)

71%

12.72%

Consumer
Discretionary(n=34)

Percentage of Companies Offering Matching Gifts in 2013
Matching-Gift Contributions as a Percentage of Total Cash Gifts

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

27

PHILANTHROPIC LEVERAGE
DEFINING PHILANTHROPY
LEVERAGE

INDUSTRYCOMPARISONS

YEAR-OVER-YEAR
TRENDSIn an effort to understand the full reach of
a company’s investment into communities
around the globe, CECP, in association with
The Conference Board, collects data on
the funds leveraged for nonprofits throughcompany relationships with customers,
vendors, suppliers, and employees.

Figure 16 shows that the median total
dollar amount raised from employees,
often through matching-gift programs,
was $1.9 million in 2013 (N=95).

In the matched set, the median dollar
amount raised from employees decreased
by 8% from 2010 ($4.86 million) to 2013($4.49 million), with 55% of companies
raising less from employees since 2010
(N=33). However, 58% of companies
increased the number of nonprofit organizations receiving funds from employeeleverage campaigns from 2010 to 2013
(N=17), indicating that companies areallowing wider breadth in choice fordetermining how donations are used.

The median dollar amount donated per
corporate employee was $69 in 2013,
although results differed by industry:

To be included as philanthropic leverage,
funds must be raised from formal campaigns meeting the following criteria:
ii Corporate Commitment: Formal

campaigns must be companysponsored, organized by aprofessional giving officer, and run
nationally. Campaigns that occur
only in particular offices, regions,or stores are excluded.

Industry

MedianDollar Amount
Donatedper Employee

All Companies, N=115$69.27

Communications, n=6$50.45

Consumer Discretionary, n=18

$26.59ii Nonprofit Beneficiaries: Fund recipi-

ents must be 501(c)(3) organizationsor the international equivalent.
Any contribution provided by the company is excluded.

Consumer Staples, n=10$30.19Energy, n=6$95.29Financials, n=24$131.85

Health Care, n=8$49.26

Industrials, n=16

$55.10Materials, n=7$64.77

Technology, n=11

$62.99

Utilities, n=9$187.32

As shown on page 24, matching-giftfundraising events received the lowest
number of votes from corporate giving
professionals asked to rank sociallymotivated employee engagement tactics
at CECP’s 2014 Summit. This lends insight
into why employee-raised funding has
decreased in recent years. While matching
programs are an important benefit,
volunteer activities appear to be in higher
demand for many of the companies
participating in this study.

Consumer Discretionary and Consumer
Staples companies raised the most funds
from non-employees, including “at theregister” fundraising from retailers.

FIGURE 16
Philanthropic Leverage: Money Raised from Corporate Fundraising Campaigns, 2013, Medians

MONEY RAISED FROM NON-EMPLOYEESMedianNumber of Fundraising Campaigns Offered per Year

N=44

1

Total Number of Campaign Days (Across All Campaigns)

N=35

72

Total Marketing/Administrative Dollars Spent

N=16$38,257

Number of Nonprofit Partners Supported

N=33

8

Total Dollar Amount Generated for Nonprofit Partners

N=38$1,450,000

Total Dollar Amount Raised from Employee Payroll Deductions

N=95$1,901,602

Total Dollar Amount Raised from Other Employee Contributions

N=87$500,000

Number of Nonprofit Partners Supported

N=83

300

MONEY RAISED FROM EMPLOYEES28

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

Administration
Practices andProgram Costs
K E Y F I N D I N GS I N TH I S S EC TI O N :Majority Have
Corporate Foundations

Corporate Community
Affairs Departments
Increase Giving

Most Companies
Measure Societal Outcomes
and/or Impacts

Corporate Community Affairs
departments took more control
over corporate giving, as theaverage corporate contribution
increased by 28% from 2010
to 2013, compared to a 2%
growth from foundations.

76% of companies reported thatthey measured societal outcomes and/or impacts in 2013,
primarily related to Education,
Health and Social Services,
and Community and Economic
Development initiatives.

See page 30.

See page 31.

See pages 34 and 35.

American Northeast Leads
Foundation Endowments

Companies Increase
Team Size

The American Northeast (asdefined by the U.S. Census
Bureau) had the highest proportion of companies operatinga predominately endowed
foundation. A pass-throughstructure was most common
among all other regions.

From 2010 to 2013, 63%of companies increased thenumber of full-time equivalent(FTE) staff on grantmaking andemployee engagement teams.
Despite the growth in team size,
management and program costs
declined from 2010 to 2013.

See page 30.

See page 32.

In 2013, 79% of companies
operated a corporate foundation, the most common ofwhich is a predominately passthrough structure that receives
funds from the company anddistributes those funds over thecourse of the same year.

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION29

CORPORATE FOUNDATIONSFOUNDATIONSTRUCTURESCORPORATE TRANSFER
OF FUNDSREGIONAL FOUNDATIONGRANTMAKING

In 2013, 79% of companies operated
a corporate foundation (N=261).
Respondents classified their foundation
structures as follows:

Just over half (55%) of the 205 companies with a foundation transferred funds
to the corporate foundation in 2013:

The culture and norms of the company’s
headquarter region influence how it
manages philanthropic functions. Among
all U.S. Census Bureau regions, as wellas the international regions considered,
the American Northeast (n=57) had
the highest proportion of companies
operating a predominately endowed
foundation. A predominately pass-throughmodel was most common in each of
the other regions. Among companies
based outside of the United States,
only 6% of corporate foundations werepredominately endowed (n=16).

Percentage
of Companies
Transferring
Funds in2013

MedianTransfer
AmountPredominately
Endowed (n=41)27%$1.0 Million

Predominately
Pass-Through(n=93)

70%$8.4 Million

Hybrid (n=34)

50%$13.5 Million

Operating(n=15)

87%$6.0 Million

Other (n=22)

32%$3.1 Million

ii Predominately Endowed: Fundedprimarily from returns on an endowment (asset reserves invested tomake a return).
ii Predominately Pass-Through: Fundedannually by the company, with typically
100% of those funds distributed
throughout the year.

Foundation
Classification

ii Hybrid: A combination of endowed

and pass-through models, with neither
structure dominating.
ii Operating: A stand-alone nonprofit,

granting at least 85% of its assets inprogramming or services directly to
end-recipients.
ii Other: A structure different from thetypes listed.
As displayed in Figure 17, the majority
of industries most commonly operated
predominately pass-through foundations(N=205).

A primary benefit of endowing a foundation is to continue consistent levels ofgrantmaking during slow business cycles,
although endowments are not immune tomarket downturns as they often lose value
during recessions. From 2010 to 2013, themedian percentage change in foundation
giving was +0.41% for endowed foundations (n=24) and -5.44% for pass-throughfoundations (n=42).

Some endowed foundations make contributions based on levels of investment
income, which may result in considerable
year-over-year differences. Corporate
foundations often also have access toprincipal dollars with approval from theboard of directors.

FIGURE 17
Percentage of Companies by Corporate Foundation Structures, Industry Breakdown, 2013
All Companies(N=205)

Communications(n=9)

Consumer Discretionary(n=28)

Consumer Staples(n=21)

Energy(n=7)

Financials(n=45)

Health Care(n=21)

19%

10%

Industrials(n=22)

18%

9%

Materials(n=14)

Technology(n=20)

10%

Utilities(n=18)

11%

Hybrid30

Operating

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

17%

7%

11%

20%

45%

22%

18%
9%

22%

11%

5%

11%
45%

18%

50%

10%

62%

14%

57%
29%

4%

14%

43%
22%

40%

33%
9%

25%
17%

Predominately Endowed

5%
38%

55%

9%

57%

7%

22%
5%

3%

20%

40%
28%

33%

Predominately Pass-Through

11%

Other

BUDGET OVERSIGHT
BUDGET TERM
DEFINITIONSINDUSTRY
DIFFERENCES

YEAR-OVER-YEAR
CHANGESAn analysis of giving by budget source
indicates the extent to which corporate
headquarters manages a company’s giving
portfolio. In the Giving in Numbers Survey,
companies separate their total giving,
inclusive of direct cash, foundation cash, andnon-cash, into three budget source designations, each indicating the group from which
the community investment was drawn:

Figure 18 displays the average allocation
by budget source for each industry in
2013. A company, on average, provided
76% of total contributions (81% ofcash contributions) from the Corporate
Community Affairs department or
Corporate Foundation (N=196).

In 2013, companies on average increased
the percentage of total giving that they
allocated from Corporate Community
Affairs departments and scaled back on
allocations from foundations (N=84):

ii Corporate Community Affairs: Giving

The list below shows the largest grant
dollar value that the senior-most personin the corporate giving department and/or foundation can award independently.

from one centralized philanthropy
budget. This represents giving by the
corporate headquarters contributions department (e.g., Corporate
Community Affairs, Community
Relations, External Affairs).
ii Corporate Foundation: Giving fromthe corporate foundation. Funding forthe foundation must originate from thecompany and not from private individuals, suppliers, or vendors.
ii All Other Groups: Giving from allother offices, regions, business units,
or groups outside of the corporate
headquarters contributions department
or corporate foundation.

Corporate
Community
Affairs

Corporate
Foundation

All
Other
Groups

2010

42.5%

33.7%

23.8%

2011

42.9%

33.7%

23.4%

2012

42.3%

33.5%

24.2%

2013

43.5%

32.2%

24.3%

INDIVIDUAL BUDGET AUTHORITY

Corporate Side:ii Median Approval Level: $50,000(N=127)

Whereas the average Corporate Community
Affairs cash contribution increased by 28%
from 2010 to 2013, average foundation
cash contributions increased by only 2%(N=84). The proportion of giving fromdecentralized corporate budgets (i.e., allother groups) increased slightly from 2010(23.8%) to 2013 (24.3%), resulting fromincreased non-cash giving, often fromstores or distribution centers. The averagenon-cash contribution from all other groups
increased by 42% from 2010 to 2013.

ii From 2010 to 2013, 38% of companies

increased their corporate approvallevel, 14% decreased, and 48% kept theapproval level the same (n=65).
Foundation Side:ii Median Approval Level: $50,000 (N=122)
ii From 2010 to 2013, 29% of companies

increased foundation approval levels,
11% decreased, and 60% kept theapproval level the same (n=62).

FIGURE 18
Total Giving by Budget Source, 2013, Average Percentages
All Companies(N=196)

Communications(n=9)

Consumer Discretionary(n=25)

Consumer Staples(n=18)

Energy(n=10)

Financials(n=41)

42%

Health Care(n=21)

41%

Industrials(n=25)

Materials(n=14)

Technology(n=19)

Utilities(n=14)

43%

33%

24%

58%

18%

44%

25%

36%

31%

24%
48%

40%
11%

41%
46%

12%

24%

36%

35%
46%

43%

Corporate Community Affairs

24%

18%

36%
52%

45%

21%
36%

22%

Corporate Foundation

12%
33%

All Other Groups

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

31

STAFFING TRENDS
DEFINING
CONTRIBUTIONS FTEs

INDUSTRY
DIFFERENCES

GRANTMAKINGTRENDS

Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) contributions
staff oversee, manage, and/or directly
administer a corporate giving, corporate foundation, or employee-volunteer
program. To be considered a contributions
FTE employee, the staff member must
spend at least 20% of his or her timeworking within Corporate Community
Affairs or the corporate foundation or
have “corporate giving” or “volunteer
coordination” in his or her job description.

The median numbers of contributions
FTEs for each industry in 2013 are:

The median number of grants approvedby companies decreased from 1,000 in2010 to 701 in 2013 (N=63), not including matching gifts. Companies are clearlymaking fewer grants and contributions staff
likely have greater bandwidth to monitor andevaluate grants on an ongoing basis.

Figure 19 displays the median growth
in FTE counts segmented by cash giving
tiers. Teams have grown in recent years
as 63% of companies in the matched
set increased their number of FTEs from2010 to 2013 (N=90), perhaps related tocompanies developing research and evaluation teams (see page 34). As illustrated
by the cash tiers in Figure 19, companies
that gave higher cash contributions typically had larger teams in 2013.

Median Number of Contributions FTEs
All Companies, N=193

8

Communications, n=8

14Consumer Discretionary, n=27

7Consumer Staples, n=17

9Energy, n=8

14

Financials, n=43

10Health Care, n=20

9Industrials, n=23

7

Materials, n=11

8Technology, n=21

5

Utilities, n=15

11

In 2013, each contributions FTE worked
with a median of 53 recipient organizations, although results differ by industry:

Whereas the majority of companies are
increasing the size of their team, somecompanies may choose to run smaller
teams because of the emergence of community foundations, like the Silicon Valley
Community Foundation, offering outsourced support for grantmaking, whichis particularly attractive to companies
seeking support and expertise on giving
outside of the United States.

Industry

Median #of Recipient
Organizations
per
Grantmaker
FTE

Consumer Discretionary, n=20

45

Consumer Staples, n=11

62

Energy, n=5

73

Financials, n=34

45

Health Care, n=1634

Industrials, n=1775

Materials, n=885Technology, n=13

40

Utilities, n=953Communications companies are excluded
due to a small sample size.

FIGURE 19
Corporate Contributions FTEs by 2013 Cash Contribution Tier, 2010 to 2013,Medians, Matched-Set Data

28.5

24 24
21

25.5 2622

19

11

3.5 3.5 3.5

4

5

10 10

9

10 10 10
8.5

5 5.5

2

Cash Giving
Under $5 Million(n=14)Cash Giving Between$5+ and $15 Million(n=20)Cash Giving Between$15+ and $25 Million(n =14)2010

32

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

2011

Cash Giving Between$25+ and $50 Million(n=18)

2012

2013

Cash Giving Between$50+ and $100 Million(n=14)Cash Giving Over$100 Million(n=10)

MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM COSTSGRANTMAKINGCOSTSYEAR-OVER-YEAR
TRENDSRUNNING A CORPORATE
FOUNDATIONIn the Giving in Numbers Survey, respondents reported management and program
costs associated with three categories:

Median management and program costs
for the matched set of companies participating in this study were (N=22):

ii Compensation: Staff salaries and ben-ii 2010: $2,230,603

Companies engaging in corporate grantmaking are faced with a choice: run grants
through a corporate foundation or manage
grantmaking activities through the business. Traditional benefits of running afoundation include:

efits for all contributions FTEs.

ii 2011: $2,020,395

ii Programmatic Expenses: Funds used

to support specific grants, such as
office supplies, postage, travel, printing,and catering.
ii Operating Expenses/Overhead:

The cost of day-to-day operations
for philanthropy at the company orfoundation and not associated withspecific grants. Examples include
software fees, travel to industry
conferences, and contracting outside
vendors.
In 2013, the median management andprogram costs were 7.6% of a company’s
giving (N=81). These costs are not included
in total giving and full descriptions can befound in CECP’s Valuation Guide.

ii 2012: $2,030,000

ii Endowing a foundation allows for con-ii 2013: $1,849,694

The general decline in management andprogram costs reflects a desire amongcorporate grantmaking teams to reduce
operating costs rather than cut back oncontributions due to financial pressures.
Corporate budget cutbacks accounted fora significant amount of giving declines in
2013. See page 13.
Program costs may increase in the future
as companies become more sophisticated in tracking and reporting employee
engagement programs; the medianvolunteer costs as a percentage of total
program costs was 19% in 2013 (N=28).
Among companies reporting volunteer
costs in 2012 and 2013, the median percentage change was +9% (n=15).

sistent funding during periods of slow
business performance. Companies canmake a gift to the foundation and receive
tax benefits in a strong year and thenhave funds available if business slows insubsequent years.
ii Nonprofit foundation status provides

an appearance of arms-length
separation between business interests and grantmaking priorities.
Managing a corporate foundation
involves increased compliance regulations and reporting requirements.
Administrative costs were slightly higher
for companies managing a foundation in
2013. In 2013, among companies giving
between $5 million and $100 million in
cash, management and program costs
were 7.26% for companies with a foundation (N=45), compared to 6.63% forcompanies without a foundation (N=11).

FIGURE 20

FIGURE 21

Median Management & Program Costs
as a Percentage of Cash and Total Giving by
Cash Giving Tier, 2013Median Management & Program Costs
as a Percentage of Cash and Total Giving by
Industry, 2013

CASH GIVING TIERManagement
Costs asa % ofTotal Giving

Management
Costs as a
% ofCash Giving

INDUSTRYManagement
Costs asa % ofTotal Giving

Management
Costs asa % ofCash Giving

Consumer Discretionary

n=11

7.50%

10.86%

Under $5 Million

n=17

13.08%

23.15%

Consumer Staples

n=10

7.14%

9.09%

$5 to $15 Million

n=26

7.50%

10.86%

Financials

n=15

7.69%

8.24%

$15+ to $25 Million

n=25

8.10%

8.10%

Health Care

n=5

0.42%

5.65%

$25+ to $50 Million

n=13

5.97%

6.81%

Industrials

n=10

9.28%

9.75%

$50+ to $100 Million

n=8

4.49%

5.24%

Materials

n=8

6.14%

7.47%

Over $100 Million

n=6

3.67%

3.70%

Technology

n=8

4.27%

6.66%

Note: Communications, Energy, and Utilities companies
were excluded due to small sample sizes.

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

33

PROGRAM EVALUATIONEMERGING EVALUATIONCULTUREMEASURING
THE VALUEEVALUATION
PRACTICESThe Giving in Numbers Survey asked
about grantmakers’ impact-evaluation
practices. In 2013, 76% of corporate
giving departments measured the outcomes and/or impacts of their grants.

In 2010, CECP released Measuring theValue of Corporate Philanthropy, by Terence
Lim, as a part of the Goldman Sachs PublicService Program. The report is free fordownload at cecp.co and illustrates three
primary measurement techniques forevaluating the societal and business valueof community engagement programs:

Among companies measuring the societal
outcomes and/or impacts of their grantmaking, 77% of companies focused theirmeasurement efforts on a set number ofgrants. Most corporations are not evaluating societal outcomes for every single
grant, but rather focusing on those thateither align with corporate priorities ormeet a specific threshold amount. Amongcompanies identifying a threshold formeasuring outcomes, the range ran from$5,000 to $1 million grants, with themost common being $100,000 (n=19).

The survey asked to use the following
logic model definitions when categorizing
evaluation efforts:
ii Inputs: Resources a program deploys(cash, in-kind gifts, etc.).
ii Activities: Processes, tools, events,

technology, and actions of the
program’s implementation to bringabout intended results.

1. Formal Impact Evaluation: Measureevaluation points before, during, andafter interventions to prove causality.
Independent evaluators are usuallyengaged.

2. Outcome Measurement Evaluation:

ii Outputs: Direct results of program

activities (e.g., types, levels, and targets of services to be delivered by aprogram).
ii Outcomes: Specific changes in pro-gram participants’ behavior, knowledge,
skills, status, and level of functioning.
ii Impacts: The change occurring inorganizations, communities, or systems
as a result of program activities in thelong term.

Track intermediate changes used
to estimate ultimate impact. May
include before and after assessments
but does not use random designs
or control groups. Uses models toestimate overall impact.

Companies measuring outcomes and/or impacts for all contributions typically worked with fewer nonprofits andapproved fewer grants in 2013, indicating that evaluation processes influence
program administration procedures:Companies
Measuring
Outcomes/
Impacts for
All Grants

Companies
Measuring
Outcomes/
Impacts for
SelectGrantsMedian #of Grants

446(n=19)

603(n=64)Median #of Recipient
Organizations

198(n=19)

499(n=72)

3. Assessing Impact-Achievement
Potential: Focus on nonprofit capabilities
and performance to increase funder’sconfidence that the organization isachieving the outcomes it claims.

FIGURE 22
Evaluation Techniques Among Companies Measuring Outcomes and/or Impacts, 2013
Percentage of Companies
that Measure Outcomes/
Impacts for All Grants

Percentage of Companies
that Focus Outcomes/Impact
Evaluation on Specific Grants

Methods for Focusing Evaluation
12%

Only grants to a specificcause area

47%

Only grants made for a
strategic philanthropic
program17%

Only grants larger than athreshold AND to a specificcause area

24%

Only grants larger than aspecific threshold

23%

77%

N=121

34

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

Includes only companies that provided specific evaluation method.

N=81

PROGRAM EVALUATION CONTINUEDSTRATEGIC
FOCUS AREAS

CHALLENGES TO
IMPACT EVALUATIONPROGRAM EVALUATION FROM
THE NONPROFIT PERSPECTIVE

Among 102 companies evaluating strategic philanthropic programs in 2013, themajority of evaluations were focused on
one of the following areas:

The top impact-evaluation challenges
identified by survey respondents include:

It is clear that measuring the societal
impact of grantmaking activities is apriority for many companies. CECP
recommends embedding evaluation
discussions, including measurement
expectations, into initial conversations
with nonprofit partners. Nonprofit
partners should play an integral role inthe development of goals, measurement
processes, and even transition plans if a
program has a clear end-date.

ii Education (41% of strategic programs)
ii Health and Social Services (26%)

ii Lack of common metrics for aparticular program area (education,energy, etc.).
ii Inability to capture impacts across adiverse grant portfolio.

ii Community and Economic

Development (16%)

ii General lack of standard measurement

Some of the most cited metrics measured
by companies in 2013 include:
Education: Graduation rates, third grade
reading test scores, college readinessindicators, Bachelor’s degree attainment
rates, racial disparity rates (achievement
gaps in test scores), teacher retention
rates, and the number of students obtaining access to technology.
Health and Social Services: Hospitalrecidivism rates, level of patientengagement, health resiliency metrics,
and the number of children receiving
immunizations.
Community and Economic
Development: Credit score changes, net
worth changes, number of jobs created,and business growth metrics.

tactics or scorecards.
ii Inability to measure long-term/

longitudinal investment impact.
Figure 23 details the percentage ofcompanies measuring outcomes and/or
impacts by industry. The measurement
field is relatively new to corporate
grantmaking, as 82% of companies
have fewer than five years of evaluation
experience (n=119). Whereas 26% ofcompanies have developed an internal
resource (entirely in-house) to evaluate
grants, the majority of companies
partner with consultants, research
institutions, universities, or other typesof organizations to address challenges to
impact evaluation.

According to The Nonprofit FinanceFund’s 2014 State of the Nonprofit
Sector Survey, the top barriers to impact
measurement for nonprofits include:

1. Insufficient staff or time.
2. Insufficient resources to hire outside
consultants to help collect data.

3. Inability to track clients over longenough period of time.

FIGURE 23
Percentage of Companies Measuring Outcomes and/or Impacts andMost Frequently Cited Experience Level in Evaluation, 2013
Health Care

n=20

Energyn=9Consumer Staples

n=16

81%

2 Years or Less

Communications

n=5

80%

5 or More Years

Consumer Discretionary

n=20

75%

2 Years or Less

Technology

n=16

75%

3 to 4 Years

Industrials

n=15

73%

3 to 4 Years

Utilities

n=11

73%

2 Years or Less

Financials

n=39

72%

2 Years or Less

Materials

n=9

95%

3 to 4 Years

89%

Most Common Experience Level

44%

2 Years or Less

2 Years or Less

% Of Companies Measuring Societal Outcomes and/or Impacts

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

35

PROGRAM EVALUATION CASE STUDIES
GSK: IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING IMPACT METRICS
Identifying Meaningful Metrics: The GSK IMPACT Grant Program began
in 2011 with a series of town hall-like meetings called “Conversations on
Community Health.” These meetings aimed to identify where and why community health needs existed, so that it could contribute to healthier communities and a healthy America. IMPACT is an acronym that characterizes
the qualities of GSK’s nonprofit partners: Innovative, Measured, Partnered,
Accountable, Community-Centered, and Transformative.

approach to guide adaptation and learning as they build and strengthen theircollective effort. The collective identified nine objectives that are tracked
through a formative evaluation and encompass both quantitative and qualitative metrics, such as increasing the number of youth attending recreation
centers by 15% and creating a sustainable and replicable model of increasing
participation at recreation centers. All goals are connected to the mission ofbuilding a healthier community.
Program flexibility is supported by this evaluation approach. When an opportunity for additional funding from the Denver City Council arose, the collective
agreed to adjust the timeline of the program to carry out additional HEAL
programs and made changes to someof its program goals accordingly.

From the beginning, the IMPACT Grant Program focused on identifying
meaningful metrics to measureprogress on health initiatives.
“This evidence-based, collective impact work is ensuring
It continues to rely on program
evaluation at each stage ofthat we have a tremendous amount of quantitative
program development in orderand qualitative data with which to measure impact andto inform the tactics used to
inform our future philanthropy.”
improve community health.

All lessons in Denver will help informthe collectives of the other threecities, as well as drive accountability
for future reporting. The Denver
Collective’s twelve-month report–Katie Loovis, Director, U.S. Community Partnerships & Stakeholder Engagement, GSK
will use a formative evaluation
In 2012, the first of four
to determine how well its HEALIMPACT Grants was launchedprogramming is working (and will react accordingly), whereas its eighteenin Denver, Colorado. This $500,000, eighteen-month program has ninemonth report will use a summative evaluation to determine what kind ofpartners that became a single entity, “The Youth Driven Healthy Recreationdifference the programs made.
Center Collective,” or “The Denver Collective.”
Using feedback from community conversations, the collective determinedthat one of Denver’s greatest opportunities was to engage youth as leadersfor promoting healthy eating and active living (HEAL) throughout a targetedcommunity. This Collective Impact (CI) approach engages multi-sector
partners in all programs to address social problems.
Tiered Evaluation Approach: Goals are identified and supported with individual-, organizational-, and community-level objectives. CI benefits fromrigorous evaluation leveraging different types (developmental, formativeand summative evaluation) depending on the stage of the CI initiative.
The Denver Collective is applying an ongoing developmental evaluation

VERIZON: BUILDING AN EVALUATION CULTURE
Building a Measurement Culture: In 2011, Rose Stuckey Kirk became
President of the Verizon Foundation. Later that same year a new Chairman
and CEO, Lowell McAdam, came on board. Together, they agreed that
Verizon’s CSR work was due for an overhaul and that it should align with its
P&L businesses, thus defining the corporate culture it embodies today.
Measuring with Transparency: Verizon’s company website publicallytracks both the business and social goals of its programs and activities.
The Verizon CR (Corporate Responsibility) Framework identifies the key
performance indicators that Verizon uses to evaluate its performance. Thereis a list of “What We Did” juxtaposed with “What We Said We’d Do” acrossfive categories: Ethics & Governance, Community Impact, Empowering
Employees, Accessibility, and Sustainability. Furthermore, Verizon’s annual
report integrates financial performance with corporate responsibility initiatives. The entire Foundation and CSR team also have specific and measurable outcomes of their programs integrated into their annual performance
agreements, thus ensuring accountability for results.

Evaluating the Evaluations: In the spirit of continued evaluation, GSK will
partner with an independent national organization to conduct an overall
evaluation of the IMPACT Grant Program. This organization will assess theevaluations to identify key progress indicators, measure true impact, andcreate a framework to help inform GSK’s overall philanthropic efforts in the
U.S. going forward.
As GSK prepares to launch additional collectives in St. Louis, Missouri,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and one additional city, its spirit of honest
transparency and accountability serves as a model of how other businesses
can foster a learning community.

tive evaluator, this employee works with program managers and nonprofit
partners to determine short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals. The
purpose is also to ensure that each team has the appropriate measurement
systems in place—both qualitative and quantitative. Team members arenaturally motivated to discuss program results because their annual performance is evaluated by these metrics.
Evaluating the Scorecard: Verizon’s CSR scorecard is shared across thecompany and is scrutinized in annual operations reviews with C-suite executives of key business units. The scorecard first assesses how each of thethree key programs has progressed in meeting its respective objectives. It
then indicates how larger goals, such as corporate responsibility, community
partnerships, external communications, and employee engagement are
integrated to give further support to Verizon’s CSR strategy. The combination of an up-close review with a summary overview holds Verizon accountable for leveraging all of its technology assets to produce, measure, andstrengthen its social impact.
Moving Forward: Across all of Verizon’s work, there are two underlying
principles: impact and scale. Verizon’s disciplined approach to measurement
addresses the impact component, but now the team is working on scale. It
is currently focusing on introspective questions such as: How do we continue to grow our programs while still maintaining their integrity? And: How
can we use what we learn to inform the business, so that the next roundof programs can be evenmore impactful?

Building an Effective Team: Verizon Foundation’s strength is in its team.
Each of Verizon’s three programmatic focus areas—education, health care,and energy—has its own team of experts who can apply their rich knowledge and personal experiences in developing goals for their respective
programs. For example, theeducation team is comprised“We don’t measure ourselves by how much money we give away;of Verizon employees including
an engineer, a former teacher,
we measure our success by the social impact we are making.”
and a former principal from–Rose Stuckey Kirk, President, Verizon Foundation
an underserved school in
New York City.
Verizon’s focus on social responsibility is driven by an internal scorecard thatis rigorously evaluated within the Foundation three times a year, led by a
dedicated employee who manages the full range of evaluation. As an objec36

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITIONAs Verizon continues
with its long-term vision
to demonstrate the role
technology can play increating positive social
impact, the ongoing combination of a bold vision, CEO support, and adisciplined approach to measurement is undoubtedly a key component of
Verizon’s leadership in corporate social responsibility.

Tools for
Benchmarking
US I N G TH I S RE PO RT
Giving in Numbers is a powerful reference tool that equips corporate giving professionals with accuratecontextual data and methods for assessing the scope and scale of their philanthropic programs.
Section Contents
This section of the report
includes:Instructions for Benchmarking
A Year-Over-Year Giving
Template

The Benefitsof Benchmarking

Opportunities to Use
Benchmarking

Benchmarking corporate contributions enables giving professionals
to do the following:

Benchmarking can be used
year-round, but companies tend
to benchmark prior to:

Present the company’s historicalcontributions in preparation forbudget discussions.
Contextualize corporate contributions within broader industry
and peer group trends to identifyalignment and differences.

Foundation or corporate
leadership meetings
Strategy or seniorleadership meetings
Meetings with a newly
appointed CEO

Highlight opportunities for new
corporate community investment programs or policies.
“Make the business case” forincreased levels or types offunding support.
CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

37

GETTING STARTED WITH BENCHMARKINGSTEP 1. Gather and Record Your Company’s Year-Over-Year Data
The template on page 39 is intended to help create a high-level snapshot of year-over-year corporate contributions. The
template does not have to be complete to be informative, as different sections of the report correspond to different
sections of the template.

STEP 2. Identify Internal Trends
Many insights can be gleaned by simply
looking at which elements of giving roseor fell year-over-year. For example:
Revenue, Pre-Tax Profit, andEmployees: By how much will recentchanges in profit affect your philanthropy budget? Lines 1-3 capture yourcompany’s financial performance andemployee workforce. Depending on
how philanthropy budgets are craftedat your company, a rise or fall in thesefigures can affect contributions thisyear or in future years.

Total Giving: Are some types ofgiving on the rise while others are
steady or declining? Lines 4-7 of thetemplate show the types of givingthat are increasing or decreasing at
your company. This level of detailis useful because each giving type
carries with it a distinct degree of
flexibility. There are no limitations on
how direct cash can be contributed,
while foundation cash is subject toself-dealing IRS regulations. Non-cash
gifts require logistical coordination.

International Giving: Is giving
abroad rising as your company
expands globally? Many companies
direct a portion of their philanthropy
toward international end-recipients.
Even those who do not typicallydirect money abroad may do so whena natural disaster strikes overseas.
Lines 24-28 show where giving
originates as well as the geographicallocation of its end-recipients.

STEP 3. Build Comparisons from the Benchmarking Tables
The four benchmarking tables on pages
6 and 7 display commonly analyzed
metrics of corporate giving. The tables
are sorted by industry, pre-tax profit
range, revenue range, and the numberof employees. In these tables, 2013
revenue, pre-tax profit, and employee
figures are used in all calculations.
Medians are calculated on a column-bycolumn basis for each row; therefore,
the data in each row are not necessarily
from the same company. Page 8 displays statistics on quartiles for the mostambitious of companies.
Using your year-over-year giving profile
as a reference, select a benchmarking table and identify the row thatbest describes your company in 2013.
Reading across that row will provide
key 2013 metrics for companies ofsimilar size or industry. Moving from
one table to the next, you will generate multiple values for the same metricbased on the different categorizationsof your company.
Multiple values for these data points
should not be seen as contradictory;
rather, multiple values are useful indetermining an applicable range ofdata. Ultimately, using a data range isa more practical approach to setting
a multi-year corporate contributions
strategy than linking giving to one
definitive benchmark.

KEY QUESTIONS TO ANSWER:
Total Giving (Line 7)
Is the total dollar value of your company’s
giving above or below the median values
you have generated from each table? Is
there an opportunity to make the case fora budget increase?
Giving Metrics (Lines 9-13)
How does your company’s ratio on
each of these metrics compare to themedian across all companies? Withinyour industry? Within companies ofsimilar size and scale?

STEP 4. Benchmark with the Other Findings in this Report
MORE KEY QUESTIONS:

Program Area Giving (Lines 14-23)

Giving by Geography (Lines 24-28)

Total Giving (Lines 4-7)

How is your company’s allocation acrossprogram areas similar to or different
from the allocations in your industry?

Does your company give in international
regions in which you do business?

What type of giving at your company
changed the most and how does that
relate to other companies that increased
or decreased giving?

38

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

Do your company’s allocations sync
with its corporate culture?

Should international program areasalign with domestic focus areas?

YEAR-OVER-YEAR GIVING TEMPLATE
Member companies that participate in the Giving in Numbers Survey have free access to an online report pre-populated withthis data. The report is entitled “My Company – Numbers Snapshot” in CECP’s online system. Other companies can use thefollowing template to create a high-level snapshot of their year-over-year philanthropic contributions. Download this form as afree Excel template from CECP: http://cecp.co/measurement/tools/assess-your-program.html.

LINE #CORPORATE FINANCIAL INFORMATION

2012

2013

Change1

Revenue

$

$

%

2

Pre-Tax Profit

$

$

%

3

Number of Employees%

TOTAL GIVING
4

Direct Cash

$

$

%

5

Foundation Cash

$

$

%

6

Non-Cash

$

$

%

7

TOTAL

$

$

%

Matching Contributions

$

$

%

MATCHING EMPLOYEE GIVING
8
GIVING METRICS
9

Total Giving ÷ Revenue

%

%

%

10

Total Giving ÷ Pre-Tax Profit

%

%

%

11

Total Cash ÷ Pre-Tax Profit

%

%

%

12

Matching Gifts ÷ Total Cash Giving

%

%

%

13

Total Giving per Employee

$

$

%

CONTRIBUTIONS BY PROGRAM AREA
14

Civic & Public Affairs

$

$

%

15

Community & Economic Development

$

$

%

16

Culture & Arts

$

$

%

17

Disaster Relief

$

$

%

18

Education: Higher

$

$

%

19

Education: K-12

$

$

%

20

Environment

$

$

%

21

Health & Social Services

$

$

%

22

Other

$

$

%

23

TOTAL

$

$

%

24

Domestic to Domestic

$

$

%

25

Domestic to International

$

$

%

26

International to Domestic

$

$

%

27

International to International

$

$

%

28

TOTAL

$

$

%

GIVING BY GEOGRAPHY

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

39

Appendices

40

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

2013 SURVEY RESPONDENT PROFILE

Number ofCompanies

INDUSTRY

Number ofCompanies

TOTAL GIVING

Communications

11

Consumer Discretionary

34

Consumer Staples

25

Over $100 Million

39

Energy14$50+ to $100 Million

29

Financials

55$25+ to $50 Million

42

Health Care

26

$15+ to $25 Million

35

Industrials

26$10+ to $15 Million

34

Materials

18$5 to $10 Million

38

Technology

31

Under $5 Million

44

Utilities

21

Giving: Total giving per company
ranged from $246,467 to $4.14 billion.
Median total giving in the 2013 sample
was $18.46 million.

PRE-TAX PROFIT

Number ofCompanies

Service
57%

Manufacturing
43%

Classification: Of the 261 survey
respondents, there were more Service
companies (150) than Manufacturing
companies (111), reflecting the large
number of participating Financials
companies.

Number ofCompanies

REVENUES

Industry: The Giving in Numbers
Survey uses the ten sectors from theBloomberg Industry Classification
Standard (BICS) to classify companies in distinct industry groups. To be
included in an industry-specific figure,an industry must be represented by atleast five company responses.

NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES

Number ofCompanies

Over $10 Billion

26

Over $100 Billion

15$5+ to $10 Billion

32$50+ to $100 Billion

28

Over 100,000

51$3+ to $5 Billion

24$25+ to $50 Billion

43

50,001 to 100,000

39$2+ to $3 Billion

34$15+ to $25 Billion

38

30,001 to 50,000

40$1+ to 2 Billion

43$10+ to $15 Billion

35

20,001 to 30,000

17$0 to $1 Billion

64$5 to $10 Billion

45

10,000 to 20,000

45

Under $0

13

Under $5 Billion

37

Under 10,000

56

Not Reported

25

Not Reported

20

Not Reported

13

Pre-Tax Profit: 2013 pre-tax profit
ranged from losses to profit of $57.71
billion. Privately held companies were
not required to submit pre-tax profit
data. The median pre-tax profit among
participants (including those reportinga loss) was $1.95 billion.

Revenue: 2013 revenues for survey
participants ranged from $1.30 billion
to $476.29 billion. Privately held companies were not required to submit revenue data. The median revenue among
participants was $16.05 billion.

Employees: The total number of
employees at participating companies
ranged from 1,563 to 2.20 million.
The median number of employees in
the 2013 sample was 31,750.

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

41

2013 DATA SNAPSHOT: PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRY
Twenty-six companies in the Health Care sector responded to the Giving in Numbers Survey. These included sevenPharmaceuticals and nineteen Non-Pharmaceuticals. See “Respondent Listing by Industry” on pages 44 and 45 for a list ofcompanies in each grouping. Non-Pharmaceutical companies include Biotechnology, Health Care Providers and Services, andHealth Care Equipment and Supplies companies.
Within the Health Care sector, Pharmaceuticals traditionally have the largest non-cash giving budgets by a substantial margin.
Given the effect this trend has on the data, these tables allow Pharmaceuticals and Non-Pharmaceuticals to benchmark
against their peers in the larger Health Care sector with more accuracy. Only survey questions with a sufficient number of
Pharmaceutical respondents are shown.

BENCHMARKINGTABLE EXCERPTMedianTotal Giving(in Millions)MedianTotal
Givingas a % of
RevenueMedianCash Giving
as a % of
RevenueMedianTotal Giving
as a % of
Pre-Tax
ProfitMedianTotal Cash
Giving as a
% of PreTax Profit

MedianMatching
Gifts as a %of Total Cash
GivingMedianTotal
Giving per
Employee

All Health Care
Companies

N=26$39.02

0.23%

0.08%

1.58%

0.70%

13.30%$681

Health Care:
Pharmaceuticals

n=7$937.55

3.25%

0.22%

19.42%

1.27%

12.44%$24,453

Health Care:
Non-Pharmaceuticals

n=19$20.07

0.05%

0.05%

0.70%

0.55%

14.91%$407

TOTAL GIVING BY FUNDING TYPE (AVERAGE PERCENTAGES)

Direct Cash

Foundation CashNon-Cash

N=261

48%

33%

19%

Health Care: Pharmaceuticals

n=7

8%

2%

90%

Health Care: Non-Pharmaceuticals

n=16

42%

31%

27%

Product Donations

Pro Bono Service

Other Non-Cash

All Companies

BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL NON-CASH GIVING(AVERAGE PERCENTAGES)

26%

12%

CASH GIVING BY PROGRAM AREA
(AVERAGE PERCENTAGES)All Companies

N=181

4%

14%

6%

12%

16%

4%

27%

14%

Health Care: Pharmaceuticals

n=7

4%

10%

4%

2%

6%

3%

0%

71%

0%

Health Care: Non Pharmaceuticals

n=16

3%

7%

3%

2%

11%

5%

0%

63%

6%

TOTAL GIVING BY BUDGET SOURCE (AVERAGE PERCENTAGES)All Companies

42

3%

Other

62%

Health &Social Services

n=13

Environment

Health Care: Non-Pharmaceuticals

Education: K-120%

Education:
Higher

21%0%

Disaster Relief

19%

100%

Culture & Arts

60%

n=7

Community& Economic
Development

All Companies

Civic &
Public Affairs

N=143

Health Care: Pharmaceuticals% Corporate
Community Affairs% Corporate
Foundation% All Other Groups

N=196

43%

33%

24%

Health Care: Pharmaceuticals

n=5

41%

2%

57%

Health Care: Non-Pharmaceuticals

n=16

41%

31%

28%

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

2013 DATA SNAPSHOT: FINANCIALS INDUSTRY
In 2013, fifty-five Financials companies responded to the Giving in Numbers Survey. These included 21 insurance companies, 13 banks, 10 institutional financial services firms, and 11 other types of financials organizations, including real estate,
specialty, and asset management companies. See “Respondent List by Industry” on pages 44 and 45 for a list of all Financials
companies participating in this year’s study.
Banks provided the highest median total giving among the Financials sector’s industry groups, predominantly through thefoundation funding model. Whereas only 38% of banks supported international end-recipients, 70% of institutional financial
services companies contributed to organizations abroad. Insurance companies provided the highest average level of supportfor Health and Social Services, in line with supporting the wellbeing of the people they insure. Insurance was the only subgroup with a majority of funds controlled by the Corporate Community Affairs team.

BENCHMARKINGTABLE EXCERPTMedianTotal Giving(in Millions)MedianTotal
Givingas a % of
RevenueMedianCash Giving
as a % of
RevenueMedianTotal Giving
as a % of
Pre-Tax
ProfitMedianTotal Cash
Giving as a
% of PreTax Profit

MedianMatching
Gifts as a %of Total Cash
GivingMedianTotal
Giving per
Employee

All Financials
Companies

N=55$15.41

0.14%

0.14%

0.96%

0.95%

12.11%

$941

Banks

n=13

$64.09

0.30%

0.22%

1.30%

1.11%

8.69%

$856

Institutional
Financial Services

n=10$38.84

0.19%

0.17%

1.30%

1.10%

10.24%$1,005

Insurance

n=21$10.23

0.07%

0.07%

0.88%

0.80%

14.92%$861

Other Financials

n=11$11.26

0.12%

0.12%

0.63%

0.57%

16.61%$1,069Includes Only Companies That Gave To
International End-RecipientsDOMESTIC VERSUS INTERNATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS% of Companies
Giving to International
End-Recipients

Average % of
Giving to Domestic
End-Recipients

Average % of
Giving to International
End-Recipients
20%

69%

31%

Institutional Financial Services

n=10

70%

72%

28%

Insurance

n=21

48%

95%

5%

Other Financials

n=11

82%

78%

22%

3%

9%

19%

2%

16%

16%

n=11

0%

9%

17%

2%

10%

25%

Institutional Financial Services

n=5

6%

31%

11%

3%

7%

26%

1%

10%

5%

Insurance

n=15

7%

16%

9%

5%

11%

14%

1%

23%

14%

Other Financials

n=8

4%

22%

6%

4%

7%

25%

1%

14%

17%

TOTAL GIVING BY BUDGET SOURCE (AVERAGE PERCENTAGES)
All Financials Companies

N=41

Other

8%
7%

Health &Social Services

22%
27%

All Financials Companies

Culture & Arts

5%
3%

CASH GIVING BY PROGRAM AREA
(AVERAGE PERCENTAGES)

Community &Economic
Development

N=39

Banks

Civic &
Public Affairs

Environment

80%

38%

Education: K-12

56%

n=13

Education:
Higher

N=55

Banks

Disaster Relief

All Financials Companies% Corporate
Community Affairs% Corporate
Foundation% All Other Groups

42%

46%

12%

Banks

n=11

29%

56%

15%

Institutional Financial Services

n=7

38%

36%

26%

Insurance

n=15

51%

44%

5%

Other Financials

n=8

49%

41%

10%

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION43RESPONDENT LISTING BY INDUSTRY2010 to 2013 matched-set companies are in boldface; Fortune 100 companies are indicated with a †. The number following eachcompany’s name indicates the number of years that company has completed the Giving in Numbers Survey.
COMMUNICATIONS (N=11)

United Stationers Inc. (1)FINANCIALS (N=55)

AOL (2)

Yum! Brands, Inc. (3)Allstate Insurance Company† (9)AT&T Inc.† (3)CONSUMER STAPLES (N=25)

American Express† (9)DIRECTV, LLC† (7)Discovery Communications, Inc. (2)Ogilvy & Mather (8)Pearson plc (9)Sprint Corporation (8)Time Warner Inc. (13)Verizon Communications Inc.† (11)Vodafone Group Plc (4)The Walt Disney Company† (9)Altria Group, Inc. (12)Anheuser-Busch InBev (3)BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. (1)Brasil Foods (1)Cargill (9)The Clorox Company (2)The Coca-Cola Company† (12)Colgate-Palmolive Company (7)CVS Health† (10)

CONSUMER DISCRETIONARY (N=34)

FEMSA (1)ADT Corporation (1)General Mills, Inc. (9)Amway Global (2)The Hershey Company (10)Apollo Education Group (3)The Hillshire Brands Company (2)Best Buy Co., Inc.† (8)Kellogg Company (2)Carlson (12)Kimberly-Clark Corporation (8)CarMax, Inc. (1)The Kroger Co.† (2)Darden Restaurants, Inc. (4)Land O’Lakes, Inc. (1)eBay Inc. (4)McCormick & Company, Incorporated (4)Ecolab Inc. (3)Newman’s Own Foundation (2)Gap Inc. (11)PepsiCo† (9)General Motors Company† (2)Philip Morris International† (5)Hasbro, Inc. (13)The Procter & Gamble Company† (5)The Home Depot, Inc.† (12)S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (2)Honda North America (3)Target† (12)J. C. Penney Company, Inc. (8)Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.† (10)JM Family Enterprises, Inc. (4)ENERGY (N=14)

Johnson Controls, Inc.† (5)KPMG LLP (11)Macy’s, Inc. (8)Marriott International, Inc. (3)Masco Corporation (4)Mattel, Inc. (10)
MGM Resorts International (1)Mitsubishi Corporation (Americas) (9)Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (4)PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (4)Sabre Holdings (5)Southwest Airlines Co. (3)Starbucks Coffee Company (4)Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (6)Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (12)Under Armour, Inc. (1)44

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

Chesapeake Energy Corporation (4)Chevron Corporation† (13)CITGO Petroleum Corporation (4)ConocoPhillips† (8)Devon Energy Corporation (1)Exxon Mobil Corporation† (8)Halliburton (8)Hess Corporation† (7)Peabody Energy Corporation (5)Phillips 66† (1)Shell Oil Company (11)Spectra Energy (2)Total S.A. (2)TransCanada Corporation (2)Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (3)AXA Equitable (6)Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (6)Bank of America Corporation† (13)Barclays (4)BNY Mellon (9)Capital One Financial Corporation (6)The Charles Schwab Corporation (2)Citigroup Inc.† (11)Citizens Bank (8)Credit Suisse (3)CSAA Insurance Group (2)Deutsche Bank (9)First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. (2)Genworth Financial, Inc. (7)The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.† (11)The Guardian Life Insurance Company ofAmerica (5)The Hartford (7)HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (10)JPMorgan Chase & Co.† (13)KeyCorp (3)Lincoln Financial Group (3)Macquarie Group (3)Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (4)Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Company† (6)MasterCard (9)MetLife, Inc.† (10)Morgan Stanley† (12)Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company (1)Nationwide Insurance† (3)Neuberger Berman (3)New York Life Insurance Company† (6)Northern Trust Corporation (2)Northwestern Mutual (4)NYSE (9)PIMCO (1)The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (9)Popular, Inc. (5)Principal Financial Group (8)Prudential Financial, Inc.† (10)Royal Bank of Canada (4)RESPONDENT LISTING BY INDUSTRY CONTINUED
State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company† (10)Crane Co. (10)Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. (1)Thrivent Financial for Lutherans (1)CSX Corporation (5)CA Technologies (7)Cummins Inc. (3)Cisco Systems† (13)

Eaton Corporation (5)Corning Incorporated (3)Emerson Electric Co. (9)Dell Inc. (8)FedEx Corporation† (6)EMC Corporation (4)Fluor Corporation (2)Google Inc.† (4)General Electric Company† (12)IBM Corporation† (13)Itron (1)IHS Inc. (1)John Deere† (4)Intel Corporation† (7)Lockheed Martin Corporation† (7)McGraw Hill Financial (12)Meritor, Inc. (8)Microsoft Corporation† (7)Northrop Grumman Corporation (7)Moody’s Corporation (9)HEALTH CARE –NON-PHARMACEUTICALS (N=19)

PACCAR Inc. (4)Motorola Solutions, Inc. (2)Raytheon Company (4)NVIDIA Corporation (2)Abbott (8)Rockwell Automation, Inc. (3)Pitney Bowes Inc. (7)Aetna Inc.† (12)Rockwell Collins, Inc. (4)Qualcomm Incorporated (8)Agilent Technologies, Inc. (10)Union Pacific Corporation (4)salesforce.com (9)Amgen Inc. (4)United Technologies Corporation† (11)Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (4)BD (8)UPS† (3)SAP AG (2)Boston Scientific Corporation (3)Votorantim Group (2)Symantec Corporation (5)Cardinal Health, Inc.† (7)Xylem (3)Synopsys, Inc. (2)The Travelers Companies, Inc. (8)U.S. Bancorp (3)UBS (7)
Unum Group (1)Vanguard (2)Visa Inc. (1)Voya Financial, Inc. (7)Wells Fargo & Company† (12)The Western Union Company (8)Weyerhaeuser Company (3)CIGNA† (5)DaVita Inc. (5)Express Scripts, Inc.† (5)HCA Inc.† (9)MATERIALS (N=18)
3M (10)
Alcoa Inc. (9)Texas Instruments Incorporated (6)Toshiba America, Inc. (2)Xerox Corporation (9)Ashland Inc. (4)UTILITIES (N=21)

Bemis Company, Inc. (2)Ameren Corporation (1)The Dow Chemical Company† (10)American Electric Power Company, Inc. (4)DuPont† (6)Arizona Public Service Company (3)FMC Corporation (5)CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (1)Gerdau (2)Consolidated Edison, Inc. (13)International Paper Company (2)Dominion Resources, Inc. (4)MeadWestvaco Corporation (3)DTE Energy Company (2)Monsanto Company (2)Duke Energy Corporation (9)HEALTH CARE –PHARMACEUTICALS (N=7)

The Mosaic Company (5)Entergy Corporation (9)Novelis, Inc. (1)Exelon Corporation (7)Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (13)Owens Corning (3)FirstEnergy (5)Eli Lilly and Company (13)Praxair, Inc. (5)NRG Energy (1)GSK (12)The Sherwin-Williams Company (2)Pepco Holdings, Inc. (2)Johnson & Johnson† (11)Vale (3)

PG&E Corporation (9)Merck† (10)Vulcan Materials Company (4)PNM Resources, Inc. (7)Humana Inc.† (5)Kaiser Permanente (3)McKesson Corporation† (10)Medtronic, Inc. (5)Quest Diagnostics Incorporated (5)Sabin (1)
UnitedHealth Group† (8)WellPoint, Inc.† (8)Novo Nordisk A/S (2)TECHNOLOGY (N=31)

PPL Corporation (2)Accenture (9)Public Service Enterprise Group
Incorporated (6)INDUSTRIALS (N=26)

Adobe (7)Sempra Energy (8)BAE Systems, Inc. (2)Alcatel-Lucent (1)Southern California Edison (9)The Boeing Company† (7)Applied Materials, Inc. (5)Southern Company (3)Caterpillar Inc.† (6)Autodesk, Inc. (2)TECO Energy, Inc. (5)CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd. (1)BMC Software (10)Pfizer Inc† (11)

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

45

FOUR-YEAR MATCHED-SET PROFILE
In order to illustrate year-overyear trends, the study employeda four-year matched set of 144
companies for many of the analyses
in this report. These companies areshown in boldface in the respondent
listing on pages 44 and 45. Each of
the 144 companies provided 2010,2011, 2012, and 2013 giving data.
The combined total giving for all 144
companies in 2013 was $17.56 billion
and the median was $26.21 million.

Industry

Number ofCompanies

2013 Total Giving Tier

Number ofCompanies

Communications

6

Over $100 Million

31

Consumer Discretionary

17$50+ to $100 Million

21

Consumer Staples

12$25+ to $50 Million

23

Energy8$15+ to $25 Million

21

Financials

35$10+ to $15 Million

17

Health Care21

$5 to $10 Million

15

Industrials

11

Under $5 Million

16

Materials

6

Technology

19

Utilities

9

CALCULATIONSSAMPLE SIZE MATTERS
Throughout the report, the convention“N=” or “n=” indicates the number ofcompanies used in each calculation. “N”
refers to the total sample size for thatanalysis, whereas “n” denotes a segmentof the total sample size. The number willvary from one figure or data point to thenext because respondents do not necessarily answer every question in the survey.
This happens when a company either does
not participate in the type of philanthropy
in question (for example, if a company
does not have an employee-volunteer
program) or when the company does nothave the data needed to respond.
To analyze specific trends from one
year to the next, this study relies onmatched-set data, which is the datafrom companies that participate in Giving
in Numbers Surveys over consecutive
years. The sample sizes for figures basedon matched sets are always lower than
the total number of companies responding in 2013 because companies that havenot completed the survey each year from2010 to 2013 will not be used to identify
year-over-year trends.
In some cases, identifying specific trends
requires the exclusion of certain data,
resulting in different outcomes for thesame data point. For example, median
total giving across all companies in 201346

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

was $18.46 million (based on 261 surveys), while the same data point acrossthe four-year matched set was $26.12
million (based on 144 surveys). For thisreason, it is helpful to note which years(and how many surveys) are included in
the computations behind each figure.

company. To calculate average percentage, each individual company’s giving is
first translated into percentages. Then,percentages across all companies areaveraged. Average percentages for anindustry do not indicate the magnitude ofgiving relative to other industries.

Data for “all companies” are shown in several figures throughout the report, alongwith an industry breakdown. While someunderrepresented industries are excluded
from the specific breakdowns (such as
Telecommunication Services), the companies within these industries are included in
the “all companies” aggregate. This causes
the sample sizes for the breakdown to
sum to a lower number than the sample
size for the “all companies” aggregate.

Distributions

CALCULATION TERMINOLOGY

Several figures in this report show companies grouped into categories based on
how much their pre-tax profit or total
giving changed from one year to the next.
To sort companies into these categories
most accurately, this study calculates
percentage changes to six decimal points.
It is extremely rare that a company falls
exactly on the threshold between one
category and the next. In instances when
this does occur, the report conservatively
lists the company in the lower range.

Aggregate Values

MedianAn aggregate value is the straight sumof all of the values in a calculation. For
example, aggregate total giving is the sumof the total giving of all companies participating in the survey. In the 2013 Giving in
Numbers Survey, this amounted to morethan $25.0 billion.

When a group of numbers is sorted fromhighest to lowest, the median value is thenumber in the middle of the list. If the list
has an even number of entries, the medianis the average of the middle two figures.
Medians are used in calculations because
they are less sensitive to extreme values
than averages, which can be skewed byvery high or very low values.

Average Percentage
An average percentage is used in placeof an aggregate percentage to preserve
the relative proportions of giving for eachCALCULATIONS CONT.
Quartiles
When numbers are sorted from highest to
lowest, the first (or top) quartile is the groupof numbers in the list higher than 75% ofother values in the list (i.e., the 75th percentile). The bottom quartile is the group of
numbers in the list higher than 25% of othervalues in the list (i.e., the 25th percentile).

WHAT’S IN, WHAT’S OUT?
Only giving to 501(c)(3) organizations or
the international equivalent is recorded in
the Giving in Numbers Survey. The company or corporate foundation can have no
expectation of repayment. Contributions topublic schools are included. Giving to Patient
Assistance Programs (PAPs) by pharmaceutical companies and Public Service
Announcements (PSAs) by media companies
are also included. Giving to political action
committees, individuals, or any other non501(c)(3) organization are not included.
In the Giving in Numbers Survey, total
giving does not include contributions from
employees, vendors, or customers. While
many companies solicit funds from customers or employees, total giving includes only
funds tied directly to a company’s financial
assets. Funds raised from employees orother stakeholders (e.g., customers) are
reported in the Philanthropic Leverage section. For multi-year grants, only the portionof the grant actually paid in the fiscal year
examined in the survey is included, not its
total, multi-year value. Total giving does notinclude contributions made with expectationof full or partial repayment to the company.
Total Giving
The Giving in Numbers Survey defines total
giving as the sum of three types of giving:ii Direct Cash: Corporate giving fromeither headquarters or regional offices.
ii Foundation Cash: Corporate founda-tion giving, which often includes thecorporate side of employee matchinggift contributions.
ii Non-Cash: Product or Pro Bono

Services assessed at Fair Market Value.
Total giving does not include management and program costs or the value ofvolunteer hours.
Download a Free Valuation Guide:
CECP.co/surveyguide

DEFINITIONSFAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV)The Giving in Numbers Survey values
non-cash gifts, also known as in-kind or
product donations, at Fair Market Value.
IRS publication 561 defines Fair Market
Value as “the price that property would
sell for on the open market. It is the pricethat would be agreed on between a willing buyer and a willing seller, with neither
being required to act, and both having
reasonable knowledge of the relevantfacts.” If the direct customer for the
product is a wholesaler, FMV is the priceat which the item was sold to the wholesaler (as FMV is based upon the next pointof sale). Reference the Valuation Guidefor further detail on special circumstances
affecting Fair Market Valuations.

FISCAL YEAR
The Giving in Numbers Survey asks
companies to report revenues, pre-tax
profits, employees, and total contributions on a fiscal year basis (end date for
12 months of data). For most companies,
this is 12/31/2013 or the end of theincome tax reporting year if not following
calendar year convention. If the corporate
or foundation giving year ends before theend of the calendar year, the earlier dateis used. If the last day of the corporate
giving year is different from the last dayof the foundation giving year, the latterdate of the two is to be used.

AMERICA’S LARGEST COMPANIESCompiled and published by Fortune
Magazine, the FORTUNE 500 is an annual
ranking of the top 500 American public
corporations as measured by gross revenue. This report refers to the largest, or
top, 100 companies from the FORTUNE
500 as America’s Largest Companies.

FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT(FTE) STAFF
The Giving in Numbers Survey defines
contributions FTE staff as those who
contribute, through oversight or direct
involvement, to at least one of the following initiatives or programs:
ii Corporate or foundation giving (including

Workplace Giving Campaigns, matching,and in-kind giving).

ii Community or nonprofit relationships.
ii Community and economic development.
ii Communications, media relations,

sponsorships, administration, or public
relations focused on community affairs,
contributions, or volunteering.
ii Sponsorships related to corporate giving.
ii Administration related to community

affairs, contributions, and volunteering.
To be counted, a contributions FTE must
spend at least 20% of his or her time working directly in Corporate Community Affairs
or a similarly named department; working
for the corporate foundation(s); or working in a branch office, retail store, local orregional business unit, or other non-headquarter/non-foundation location but having“corporate giving” or “volunteer coordination” included in his or her job definition.
A staff member spending a fraction of hisor her time in such a capacity is recorded
as the decimal equivalent of that fraction.
For example, someone who spends 50%
of his or her working time on corporate
giving is 0.5 of a contributions FTE.

INTERNATIONAL GIVINGThe Giving in Numbers Survey inquires as
to how total giving is distributed among
domestic and international end-recipients.
Geography of End-Recipient: Domestic
refers to the company’s headquarters
country and international refers to anywhere outside of the company’s headquarters country. Geography refers to thelocation of the end-recipient and not thelocation of the nonprofit.
Regional Breakdowns: Regions are
categorized based on the United Nations
Statistics Division Codes.
ii Asia and the Pacific: Asia – includes all

countries in Eastern Asia, Central Asia,
South-Eastern Asia, Southern Asia (withthe exception of Iran), and also includes
the following five countries from
Western Asia: Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Cyprus, Georgia, and Turkey. Oceania– includes Australia, New Zealand,
Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia.
ii Europe: Includes all countries in Eastern

Europe, Northern Europe, Southern
Europe, and Western Europe.

ii Employee volunteering.

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

47

DEFINITIONS CONTINUED
ii Latin America and the Caribbean:

Includes all countries in the Caribbean,
Central America and Mexico, and SouthAmerica.
ii Middle East and Africa: Africa – includes

all countries in Eastern Africa, Middle
Africa, Northern Africa, Southern
Africa, and Western Africa. Western
Asia – includes all countries in Western
Asia with the exception of Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, and Turkey.
Southern Asia – includes just Iran.
ii North America: Includes the UnitedStates, Bermuda, Canada, Greenland,Saint Pierre, and Miquelon.

PHILANTHROPIC LEVERAGE
For some companies, part of their philanthropic effort involves raising funds from
employees, customers, suppliers, and/or vendors. These funds are not included
in total giving; only contributions that tie
directly to a corporation’s financials areincluded in total giving. These fundraising
amounts are reported in a separate question, however, to allow for benchmarking.
To include funds in this survey question,
funds must be raised from formal campaigns meeting the following criteria:
ii Corporate Commitment: These cam-paigns must be company-sponsored,
organized by a professional giving officer,
and run nationally (at least). Campaigns
that occur only in particular offices,
regions, or stores are not included.
ii Nonprofit Beneficiaries: Recipientorganizations of the funds raised must
be 501(c)(3) organizations or the international equivalent.
ii What to Exclude: Any contribution

provided by the company. All corporate
contributions to 501(c)(3) organizations or the international equivalent areincluded in total giving.

PRO BONO SERVICE
Pro Bono Service is a type of employee
engagement that falls within skills-based
service. However, unlike any other type of
employee engagement, Pro Bono Service
is recorded in the Giving in Numbers
Survey as a non-cash or in-kind contribution. The criteria below, all of which must
be met, distinguish Pro Bono Service fromother paid-release employee time:48

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

ii Commitment: The company must

make a formal commitment to therecipient nonprofit organization for
the final work product. The company
is responsible for granting the service,staffing the project, and ensuring its
timely completion and overall quality. Projects that occur informally asa result of an employee’s personal interest and availability are not included.
ii Professional Services: Pro bono dona-tions are professional services for which
the recipient nonprofit would otherwise
have to pay. Employees staffed on the
project must use the same skills that
constitute the core of their official job
descriptions. Projects that use only
some of an employee’s basic job knowledge are not included in pro bono.
ii Indirect Services: Pro Bono Services

must be indirect, meaning that thecorporation must provide the service
through a 501(c)(3) organization orinternational equivalent.
Additional examples of Pro Bono Service
and guidance on valuing Pro Bono Service
hours at Fair Market Value can be found in
the Giving in Numbers Valuation Guide.

PROGRAM AREAS
Respondents to the Giving in Numbers
Survey are assisted on how to categorize
contributions’ ultimate end-recipients,
rather than the general organization
type. For additional guidance on what
is included in each of these categories,
please refer to the Giving in Numbers
Valuation Guide.
Civic and Public Affairs: Includes
contributions to justice and law, stateor local government agencies, regional
clubs and fraternal orders, and grants topublic policy research organizations (e.g.,
American Enterprise Institute and The
Brookings Institution).
Community and Economic
Development: Includes contributions tocommunity development (aid to minority
businesses and economic development
councils), housing and urban renewal, andgrants to neighborhood or communitybased groups.
Culture and Arts: Includes contributions to museums, arts funds or councils,
theaters, halls of fame, cultural centers,

dance groups, music groups, heritage
foundations, and non-academic libraries.
Disaster Relief: Contributions that support preparedness or relief, recovery,
and/or rebuilding efforts in the wake of anatural or civil disaster or other emergency hardship situation.
Education, Higher: Includes contributions
to higher educational institutions (including departmental, special projects, andresearch grants); education-related organizations (e.g., associations for professors
and administrators, literacy organizations,and economic education organizations);
and scholarship and fellowship funds forhigher education students through intermediary organizations and other education centers, foundations, organizations,and partnerships.
Education, K-12: Includes contributions
to K-12 institutions (including departmental, special projects, and research grants);
education-related organizations (e.g.,associations for teachers and administrators, literacy organizations, and economic
education organizations); and scholarshipand fellowship funds for K-12 students
through intermediary organizations andother education centers, foundations,organizations, and partnerships.
Environment: Includes contributions toenvironmental and ecological groups or
causes including parks, conservancies,
zoos, and aquariums.
Health and Social Services: Includes
contributions to United Way and other
Workplace Giving Campaigns and grants
to local and national health and humanservices agencies (e.g., Red Cross,American Cancer Society), hospitals,
agencies for youth (excluding K-12 education), senior citizens, and any other healthand human services agencies, including
those concerned with safety, family planning, and drug abuse.
Other: Contributions that do not fall into
any of the main beneficiary categories orfor which the recipient is unknown.

DEFINITIONS CONTINUEDREGIONAL ANALYSISPROGRAM EVALUATIONThe Giving in Numbers Survey asks companies where their corporate headquarters is located by country, state, and city.
Each company is classified according to
the following U.S. Census Bureau Regional
Breakouts:

The Giving in Numbers Survey asks companies which levels of a logic model areevaluated in their grantmaking. The logic
model levels are classified according to thefollowing breakout:

Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska,
North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, andWisconsin.
Northeast: Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Vermont.
South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
and West Virginia.
West: Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming.

ii Inputs: Resources a program deploys(cash, in-kind gifts, etc.).
ii Activities: Processes, tools, events,

technology, and actions of the program’s implementation to bring about
intended results.
ii Outputs: Direct products of pro-gram activities (e.g., types, levels, andtargets of services to be delivered by aprogram).
ii Outcomes: Specific changes in pro-gram participants’ behavior, knowledge,
skills, status, and level of functioning.
ii Impacts: The change occurring inorganizations, communities, or systems
as a result of program activities in thelong term.

Non-U.S.: Includes all companies basedoutside of the United States.

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

49ABOUT CECPRESEARCH AND
MEASUREMENT:TRACKING
TRENDS, GUIDINGSTRATEGIESPUBLIC REPORTS

CECP’s Research and Measurement Team oversees the organization’s annual research study of corporate giving data. In 2014, nearly
300 leading corporations participated. This company-reported
dataset results in CECP’s Giving in Numbers and Giving Around the
Globe reports, irreplaceable tools used by corporate giving staff tostrengthen and elevate their programs. CECP research is unrivaled inits depth, granularity, and robust participation.

DATA SOLUTIONSCECP Data Solutions are analytics services exclusive to CECP-affiliatedcompanies, putting the powerful dataset that produces Giving in Numbers
to work for your company’s community relations strategy. Data Solutions
are an unlimited, year-round service that allows companies to:ii Evaluate programs and policies for improvementii Present key metrics to senior leadership in context
ii Advocate for adjustments to budget or staffing levels
ii Benchmark programs year-over-year or against relevant peers

Onlineii Confidential, password-

protected systemii 24/7 accessii Draws from a dataset of morethan US$250 billion in corporate
givingii Allows users to select specificpeer groups and run customized
reportsii Allows users to compare
company-specific giving andemployee-volunteer information

Join Us!
Interested companies areinvited to join this landmark
campaign. To schedule a
consultation with CECP’s
Research and Measurement
team, contact:
Michael Stroik
mstroik@cecp.co212-825-1000

50

CECP | GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION

CECP Data Solutions Staff
ii Tailor requests beyond what isavailable online:
ii Receive customized slides forupcoming meetingsii Access insights and support
for your strategy or proposal
ii Request in-person trend
presentations and fast-track
consulting for your company’s
strategy development

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CECP, in association with The Conference Board, thanks the 261 companies
that participated in the 2013 Giving in Numbers Survey for their ongoingcommitment to increased transparency in the corporate philanthropy field.
The Giving in Numbers framework, used as the basis for the survey, wasadapted from the London Benchmarking Group model, and CECP and The
Conference Board are grateful for its collaboration. CECP and The Conference
Board would also like to acknowledge the Points of Light Institute for its input
on the volunteerism section of the survey and valuation guide, as well as the
Taproot Foundation’s Pro Bono Action Tank for its leadership and expertise in
the area of pro bono service.
In addition, CECP and The Conference Board are grateful to collegialorganizations such as VolunteerMatch and the Silicon Valley Community
Foundation for graciously promoting the Giving in Numbers Survey among
their corporate partners.

Graphic Design by Tom Dolle Design, www.dolledesign.com

GIVING IN NUMBERS: 2014 EDITION IS SUPPORTED BY:

5 Hanover Square, Suite 2102
New York, NY 10004
P: 212.825.1000
F: 212.825.1251
cecp.co