Strategic alliances between business and nonprofits

(c)2002 by Ben Brink

Strategic Alliances Between
Business And Nonprofit Organizations For
Increasing Impact Of Philanthropic Work:

Economic, Sociological, and Cultural-Anthropological perspectives

This paper discusses the dynamics that create value in forming strategic alliances between business and nonprofits for increasing impact of philanthropic work. Economic and sociological qualities suggest some foundations for relationship formations, followed by a broad abstracted cultural-anthropologic view suggesting one way on how evolving cultural limitations can be viewed to address needs with philanthropic work in evolving cultural environments.

Public and private sector organizations have some identical organizational dynamics, management pressures, and methods of determining operational requirements, such as the use of ethics, critical thinking, decision-making, determining requirements, planning, implementing, and verifying results. However, the processes often result in different methods of practice because government, charities and other nonprofit organizations have different sets of requirements, ethical values and priorities than commerce-based organizations. US government agencies serve the people; Agency economics are not usually tied to marketplace forces. Missions from forprofit and nonprofit companies tend to have different objectives also.

A. An Economic Perspective

Economics is a "social science that seeks to analyze and describe the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth" ("economics", n.d.). Business and nonprofit organizations are legal entities that function primarily in the domain of economics. To understand alliances between business and nonprofits, one needs to understand the economic environment that they operate in, and the advantages and limitations of both types of operations.

1. Nonprofit Organizations

Non-profit organizations tend to serve social needs including areas where market-driven economics do not work, such as providing low-cost services to the poor, or special medical funding to the medically uninsured, caring for the environment etc. Promoting art and teaching children in "club" formats may seem more on the fringe of commercial. This paper does not address the merits of the definition of legitimate nonprofit objectives. It is important to recognize that nonprofits practice a different set of values and organizational culture than forprofit companies.

2. Forprofit Companies

Businesses are forprofit companies. They exist to create high yields for stakeholders --shareholders and owners-- by increasing profits. Businesses wage economic war on each other. The marketplace is the front-line. Businesses are free to market to narrow segments or broad ranges of the market. They set prices and give priority to maximizing profit over environmental and other socially responsible concerns. For profit companies tend to ignore those having limited purchasing power because potential profits are limited.

3. Socially Responsible Investing (SRI)

SRI is not an economic entity, but a way of doing business that attempts to balance profit with economic and social concerns. SRI is a growing secondary financial market geared to match investors with businesses that operate by SRI or "green" principles.  The green principles differentiate SRI businesses from standard forprofit companies. Green investors are motivated to improve social and environmental conditions, but do not want to just give funds away --as donors do when giving to charity. Green investors, like regular investors, want to spend money with some kind of a return on investment --even if risk of loss is involved.  The secondary market of investment funding includes a significant number of investors who want to invest in SRI businesses, projects and ventures.

SRI fund indexes evaluate operating-decisions and principles of companies --indicating levels of social and environmental responsibility as well as economic and financial returns (Investor Responsibility Research Center, 2001). The combination social and financial returns are described as double or triple bottom-line, instead of the single financial bottom-line. The three main strategies of SRI "include screening, community investing, and shareholder activism" (SocialFunds.com, 2002). In other words, 1. goals that include directly improving the environment, recycling, reducing pollution, etc.  2. operating with a responsible set of social and ethical values. and 3. financial return on investments. The SRI way of doing business struggles to reconcile nonprofit values in the realm of forprofits.

SRI businesses can make great returns on investments as records indicate at socialfunds.com. Yet questions remain on how competitive companies can be when putting long-term community goals over short-term profits. Can they reach the top tier of a financial performing index to attract economically biased investors? With SRI, other priorities are as important as profit, and so the question may not be relevant in the narrow context of economic performance alone. SRI uses metrics similar to nonprofits' socially responsible metrics.  Priorities are shared between an economic bottom-line, a socio-societal bottom-line, and an environmental bottom-line producing a 3 point measure of total operations impact.

4. Philanthropic Work By Nonprofits, Forprofits And SRI

Nonprofits arguably perform the greatest amount of philanthropic work per capita by definition. Philanthropic work is central to organizational goals. SRI arguably performs the next greatest amount per capita, since SRI uses metrics similar to nonprofits as well as business. Businesses arguably perform the least amount of philanthropic work, since economic profit dominates motive.  Still, businesses, in addition to nonprofits and SRI, can provide great value for philanthropic work. The strengths and weaknesses of each operational environment needs to be analyzed to find out how each can provide value to the other in philanthropic work.

a. Nonprofits' Advantages

• tax-exempt status. In the US, nonprofit organizations can qualify for and obtain tax-exempt status. Tax exemptions allow nonprofits to direct more expenditures to their missions, since a percentage of income is not paid to taxes instead.

b. Nonprofits' Limitations

• unrelated business income tax. In exchange for tax-exempt status, nonprofits are restricted to operate within the narrow scope that they have been authorized to operate. Income from any other activity is taxable as "Unrelated Business Income Tax" (UBIT) (Internal Revenue Service, n.d.). To avoid any risk of UBIT expenses, nonprofits do not waiver from their scope of operations --even if doing so may help them better reach their objectives. Operating conflicts sometimes include making decisions that reduce the risk of loosing income to taxes, thereby preventing nonprofits from maximizing the nonprofit charitable goals in the presence of greater opportunity.  Reducing risk of UBIT potentially prevents gains in significant output towards goals.
• lack of implementing business strategies. Nonprofits operate according to philanthropic and cooperative goals. Socially responsible values are predominate in decision-making and culture, helping to prevent UBIT and minimizing possible benefits of implementing some economic principles such as economies of scale and performance analysis to achieve goals. Profitability may not be considered a legitimate metric during strategic planning. Cost efficiency may not be a priority also, when socially responsible metrics are valued over economic metrics. Still, economic metrics can help identify waste and organizational trends.
• not investment tools. Nonprofits accept donations, but cannot accept investments (Internal Revenue Service, n.d.) --where investors expect a return.

c. Forprofits' Advantages

• opportunity from weakness. Forprofits potentially create opportunity for nonprofits by having negative or nonpositive impacts in the noneconomic areas of social concerns such as environment, while making a profit.
• practically unrestricted economically. Can invest in other companies and nonprofits. Can make donations, and can seek donations. Forprofits are not encumbered with the aforementioned UBIT or investment barriers beyond the restriction on investing in nonprofits.

d. Forprofits' Limitations

• social stigma. Some companies may carry a social stigma such as from a historic negative environmental incident or ongoing production practice that subjugates creating alliances with SRI or nonprofit sources.

e. Socially Responsible Investing's Advantages

• reputation. SRI funded companies depend on their public reputation for investment valuation opportunities.

f. Socially Responsible Investing's Limitations

• no investing in nonprofits. Just as nonprofits are barred from taking investments (by definition of financial structure), SRI investors cannot work with nonprofits because investors expect an economic return at some point.
• metrics not standardized. SRI exists in many markets, yet metrics for company compliance to SRI values has not been standardized, and compliance data is inadequate.  Numeric indexing does not yet portray adequate scenarios for comparison between companies. (Investor Responsibility Research Center, 2001)
• subject to abuse. Compliance is difficult to verify since much information comes directly from the company. Market compliance is basically limited to companies that are sanctioned as SRI compliant by lack of evidence to the contrary.  (Investor Responsibility Research Center, 2001)

5. Philanthropic Work Through Coordinating Nonprofit And Forprofit Qualities

a. Forprofits Investing In SRI Companies

Corporate consumers that use forprofit services might consider investing in the SRI companies as a means to recover some expenses, since corporations get a substantial tax benefit from investing in other corporations --"corporate dividends" (Internal Revenue Service, n.d.). Corporate nonprofits tend to not invest in other corporations because it likely results in UBIT (Internal Revenue Service, n.d.). Forprofit corporations, like other investors, cannot use this approach to invest in nonprofit corporations. Instead, corporate investors promote other forprofit corporations they invest in --resulting in forprofit flexibility with advantages of minimizing expenses.

b. Forprofit Conversion To SRI Practices

Producers that want to transition to socially responsible methods can find themselves in a bind. Conversion to a double or triple bottom-line can be economically risky when business principles are not adhered to. For example, if a forprofit company does not make provisions to at least appear as if it is trying to make regular profit, the company can be taxed as if it had earned a regular profit anyway. The IRS' Alternative Minimum Tax and Applicable Federal Rates impose taxes, such as when offering extra-low loan rates as incentives for triple bottom-line projects (Internal Revenue Service, n.d.). Also, if a company continues to not make a profit, it will fail economically eventually.

c. Coordinated Advertising With Nonprofits

Forprofits can leverage their economic strengths to gain SRI or "green" status. They can partner with nonprofits to gain recognition in concern for socially responsible and ethical principles. "Cause-related marketing" (CRM) is a traditional model of nonprofits and businesses working together, where a product or service is marketed and a portion of revenue donated to the nonprofit for "the cause"; Both promote and benefit from CRM. (Cause, n.d.)

d. Leveraging Resources With Nonprofits

Forprofits can leverage their resources to help secure long-term assets (and reduce long-term debt) to the mutual benefit of nonprofits. For example, a business could buy a larger building anticipating eventual expansion, letting extra space to nonprofit organizations until the space is needed. Also, forprofits are sometimes in a position to absorb short-term changing needs that complement market changes and social responsibility. For example, as a market shrinks or region experiences negative growth, assets can be given or traded to nonprofits, instead of divesting --providing immediate tax write-offs while reducing economic burdens on nonprofits.

e. Coordinating Services With Nonprofits

Forprofits can license or offer services to nonprofits, increasing the effectiveness of nonprofit services. Forprofits may also be able to offer nonprofits services and goods with greater efficiency and quality than nonprofits can manage internally. For example, a homecare meal delivery service might be able to create more value in meals or more meals from monetary donations, by coordinating with a forprofit restaurant or catering service. Forprofits might assist during peak demand periods.

More profoundly, for-profits may be able to offer higher-quality, socially responsible products and services directed to professional organizations and corporate customers at a profit, while assisting nonprofits in the low-income market segments by providing tools and services, such as during off-market periods! In any case, forprofits that provide products to a large range of market segments may help increase a company's overall economic health by creating conditions that help a company adapt to fast market changes, such as by switching to low-overhead operations during off-peak times.

6. Conclusion

By building strategic economic relationships between forprofit and nonprofit companies, forprofit companies become important assets to socially responsible objectives by assisting nonprofits in socially responsible practices. Nonprofit and for-profit companies, regular corporations, governmental organizations, and entrepreneurial networks, can create strategic alliances that work within the current economic system by taking advantage of economic benefits while working within the limitations of forprofit and nonprofit organizations.

B. A Sociology Perspective

Sociology is a social science that among other things, studies the institutions structured from society, the dynamics of their forces, and how they maintain stability and create changes ("sociology", n.d.). In addition to economics, the sociology of nonprofit and forprofit institutions needs to be addressed. This report portrays to extremes  the differing cultures and values between forprofits and nonprofits to show contrast and simplify the discussion of a wide range of cultural variation from organization to organization. To understand the social importance of strategic alliances between forprofits and nonprofits, one needs to understand the concerns and dynamics of the social environment that they operate in.

1. Polarizing Forces Of Increasing Globalization And Meeting Social Needs

Rosabeth Moss Kanter explains in her book "World Class," how the increasing economic effects of globalization will create increasing challenges for localities (regions and communities) in meeting their social needs.  As corporations become globally market oriented, their headquarters are likely to move away or become foreign owned. The corporations will likely invest less in local social causes than their locally owned and operated counterparts (Kanter, p.192). Kanter states that communities will face five challenges --one of which is specific to social concerns:

To use new models for civic engagement and leadership development, in which community service is an integral part of a business career and social capital is developed by teams of diverse people working together on community projects (Kanter. p.369).

Kanter's conclusion is based on experience and observations regarding increasing economic pressures on business, and resulting polarizing sociological reactions by individuals and communities, stressed by globalization changes in society.

2. Reconciling Polarizing Forces

To counter the polarizing issues, businesses are under increasing pressure to find new ways of addressing social concerns that are compatible with business' strategies and have a measurable impact beyond current nonprofit performance levels (Kanter. pp.192-3). Kanter's observation adds new requirements to strategic alliances between nonprofits and forprofits --combining and unifying the goals of both cultures in the global and local perspective.  Kanter proposes the following paradigm of sociological-economic objectives (p.370):

• that the best social program is good jobs;
• that the best jobs are those that provide linkages and capabilities for the global economy;
• that the best source of those jobs and capabilities is a world-ready business;
• that the way to attract and keep world class companies is to build a strong community, one that adds value to the company's business through its core global skills, welcomes newcomers, and offers a high quality of life;
• that a desirable community is one that can work together to address its problems and build a healthy business climate that creates good jobs... which is the best social program

This paradigm does not rule out the necessity for ongoing philanthropic work where markets have failed. The paradigm highlights the coming need for business to work with nonprofits in coordinated efforts --strategic alliances. Nonprofits can increase their value to business objectives by formulating strategies that target any of the above objectives while staying within their narrowly defined operational guidelines. 

3. Sociological Strategies With An Economic Basis

In addition to the economic-based alliances proposed earlier in this paper, Kanter proposes some sociological-economic hybrid strategies evolving from requirements to reconcile globalization and community needs, including:

• "Develop regular areawide civic forums for communication and mutual understanding between business [,nonprofits] and government. Use the forums to... remove obstacles to a healthy.. community life." (p.371)
• "Extend education in quality problem-solving skills to the schools" (p.371).
• "Help minority companies join networks as equal players" (p.373).
• "Ensure that mentoring programs for minority businesses make them 'world-ready' from the start" (p.373).
• "Support 'learning alliances' to offer training, compare best practices, share success stories, and provide internships across companies [and organizations]" (p.376).
• "Develop school-to-work apprenticeship programs that offer students the chance to gain job skills" (p.377).
• "Mount a civic leadership development program in which the next generation of leaders forms project teams to tackle community problems" (p.377).
• "Link community service to employee development and training, and help volunteers get credit or credentials as part of their career development" (p.377).
• "Use the agenda of newer, technology-based industries as the basis for new forms of civic contribution. Offer schools and not-for-profit institutions as sites for demonstrating the value of new technologies" (p.378) and use the technology for helping meet philanthropic goals.
• "Help not-for-profit organizations understand the implications of strategic philanthropy and become better business partners by teaming with others to multiply their impact. Find ways to measure the quantity and quality of community service, so that not-for-profits can value the time they receive (not just the dollars) and those engaged in community service can reach a high performance standard and get 'resume credit' for their activities" (p.378).

Although these strategies unify business and nonprofit goals, they are somewhat business centric in that they do not span meeting the needs of the entire range of nonprofit goals and social needs. Both nonprofits and businesses can benefit from strategic alliances in other ways that are unique to their industry and social objectives. Regardless of the variations, businesses will likely lack incentives to support some kinds of charitable work, but that is beyond the scope of this report. 

4. The Philanthropic Culture Brings Value To Alliances Also

One particularly important new strategy is missing from the list of strategies: filling the experiential-educational void in how the business culture is to value, evaluate, and communicate socio-societal values and meaning in business practices.  Nonprofits could benefit from this sociological problem by operating philanthropic service seminars and learning projects --consistent with Kanter's strategies and objectives, and oriented to providing business professionals with experiential knowledge needed to put meaning with however business culture rationalizes and valuates social concerns.

Denis Collins suggests that graduate MBA programs augment MBA student learning with service learning, where students volunteer for community service, including "feeding the homeless, volunteering at social service agencies, serving as environmental advocates, working with low-income community centers, lobbying on behalf of disenfranchised groups, and developing business plans for firms operating in inner-city neighborhoods." This process also provides opportunity for business students to learn ways for measuring students' and others' performance using noneconomic metrics --essential for increasing alignment of business and charitable goals as proposed by Kanter. These service-learning projects could also provide opportunity for businesses to use internal resources to begin and maintain SRI initiatives, and provide new social networks to help address and adapt to changing social needs.

5. Conclusion

Increasing economic and sociological pressures of globalization are creating new opportunities for nonprofits and forprofits to work together --forming strategic alliances for philanthropic and business purposes.  Global commerce, viewed as anti-social and anti-local by critics, can fuel opportunity for increasing positive impact on philanthropic work by creating strategic alliances between business and nonprofit organizations. Both nonprofits and forprofits have valuable resources to contribute to developing economic and social needs.

C. A Cultural-Anthropology Perspective

Cultural anthropology (CA) is one of two major branches of anthropology. The other is physical anthropology. CA is the study of cultures in all its variations and manifestations. The majority of CA research is based on "archaeology, ethnography and ethnology, folklore, and linguistics" ("cultural anthropology", n.d.). However this report discusses the topic from the systems approach, exploring the evolution of culture in seeking ways to identify paths to solving evolving problems. Principles, tools and techniques of systems engineering are commonly applied to technology and engineering, but are also starting to be applied to basic social and economic problems ("systems engineering", n.d.). Social science uses the social-systems approach ("social science", n.d.), suggesting it is a better discipline for this discussion. However, social science focuses more on studying individual cultures and intercultural dynamics from a collective behavior perspective; Whereas CA includes studying of evolutionary forces in all cultures from sociobiological ("sociobiology", n.d.), instinctual origins to "security of life"("culture", n.d.) and beyond.  The evolutionary trait of cultural anthropological studies is most significant for this third discussion, which starts with a definition of human culture.

1. Human Culture, Social And Economic Segmentations

Human culture is a set of human fabricated environments, "sociocultural systems", where each sociocultural system has structure and function. "As culture evolves, sociocultural systems (like biological systems) become more differentiated structurally and more specialized functionally, proceeding from the simple to the complex" ("culture", n.d.). In the systems approach, complexity refers to the state of a system to have a level of complexity in its properties, operation, or behavior that is not fully predictable, as interpreted by interacting systems and observers --commonly the research community ("complexity").  The current welfare society and socially responsible "kinship" cultural segmentation has origins in the preliterate Tribal sociocultural system. The economic sociocultural system is based on property distinctions, specialization of labor, and trade that evolved with literacy. ("culture", n.d.) From this new perspective, businesses are structures of economic culture, and nonprofit organizations are structures of tribal (social) culture.

2. Origins Of The Evolutionary Trait In Human Culture

The patterns of human social interaction, however deep their biological and psychological roots, are not simply direct instinctual expression, or the playing out of a built-in psychological drama. They are.. somewhat distinct answers to essentially the same questions posed by human biology and by generalities of the human situation. They are complex answers, ways which have been built up over time, experiments in living.. [creating and changing customs] that different cultures have worked out in the course of which new and varying needs themselves have generated. (Edel & Edel., 1959)

3. Function Of Economic And Social Sociocultural Segmentations

One can infer from Edel and Edel that economic and social cultures have similar primary functions (goals) in spite of differing structures.  Beliefs and thoughts precede actions (behavior) addressing sociobiological problems and sociological problems of the human condition. Behavior, common values and beliefs emerge as customs that define an evolving culture. Economic and social culture segmentations represent two different, co-existing, complex systems in the pursuit of solving problems facing humanity.

4. Trends In Evolving Structures

A common dynamic of interacting with complex systems is represented in Edel and Edel's above quote: As solutions are implemented, more complex problems emerge. In systems engineering, the previous remark can be thought of as a symptom of applying an oversimplified solution to a more complicated problem, visa versa, or the result of misunderstanding the problem or the system to begin with. The increasing complexity of cultural structures (rules and customs) hints at the ever increasing fragmentation of partial solutions --not to mention stress between cultural habits and changing customs. Evolving economic and social systems seem to follow the same trend of increasing in complexity and fragmentation.  Likewise, the solution seems to suggest the increase of specialization and narrow focus (localization) to utilize new methods of solving problems (within the system environment). Economics problems suggest more specialized economic solutions. Social problems suggest increasingly elaborate social programs (solutions).

5. Solving Problems By Bridging Cultural Segmentation Structures

Within the human sociocultural system containing the economics and social segmentation systems,  addressing economic problems exclusively with economic solutions can be viewed as a linear problem solving methodology, resulting in incomplete solutions. Addressing social problems exclusively with social programs is linear thinking also. By abstracting current problems to the entire human sociocultural perspective, solutions involving one or more segmentation frameworks can be used to bypass limitations from another segmentation structure in solving problems it creates. By viewing problems from the greater perspective of humanity, social cultural structures can be used to bypass limitations from economic cultural structures in solving problems created by current economics. Similarly, economic cultural structures can be applied to solving social problems.

6. Some Current Problems Facing Humanity

The structure of economic cultures and social cultures (among other cultural segmentations and types ("culture", n.d.) remain inadequate in solving structural problems of humanity from separate sub-system perspectives. Social and economic crisis continues around the world. Social tools are narrowly applied to solve social problems or economic ones. And economic tools are applied to solve economic problems or social ones. The challenge of solving problems is greater than spreading wealth or happiness; the challenge is in coordinating intelligent action from various systems including economic and social structures.

6. Conclusion

"Strategic alliances between business and nonprofit organizations" is about bridging contrasting cultural structures for common functions and goals. Alliances between economic and social cultures help solve existing social needs problems and economic problems of globalization as outlined in the sociological discussion of this report (according to structural advantages and limitations outlined in the economic discussion). Beyond the specific topic covered by this report, the discussion about the systems approach to solving problems identifies some long-term historical cultural patterns that can help shape strategies for solving sociocultural based problems into the future.

D. Implications And Final Statement

The cultural anthropological discussion suggests that strategic alliances will evolve, forming new cultural structures with new problems that will need different solutions. That is the nature of complex systems. The cultural anthropologic view of humanity as an evolving system of structures and functions can be used to help solve problems yet unforeseen.  In pursuit of solutions to humanity's changing conditions and concerns, humanity must seek unifying cultural forces that bridge the differences and dilemmas of existing cultural structures while respecting them. "Strategic alliances between business and nonprofit organizations for increasing impact of philanthropic work" outlines some current opportunities for bridging cultural divides in solving problems facing humanity.

E. Bilbliography and Citations

Carter, William K. (1999 Aug). Instructional Case: WorkSource Enterprises: how the board of directors monitors performance. Issues in Accounting Education, 14(3).

Cause Related Marketing. (n.d.). Business for Social Responsibility. [Retrieved March 4, 2000 from internet: http://www.bsr.org/BSRlibrary/TOdetail.cfm?DocumentID=215].

Claussen, Eileen. (2001 Jan/Feb). Global Environmental Governance. Environment, 43(1). [online].

Collins, Denis. (July 1996). Voluntary Brainwashing of Humanities Students in Standford's MBA program: student complaints and some recommendations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6.

"cultural anthropology" (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica Online. [Retrieved on Mar 14, 2002 from the internet: http://www.search.eb.com/bol/topic?xref=18008&pm=1 ].

"culture" (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica Online. [Retrieved on Mar 14, 2002 from the internet: http://www.search.eb.com/].

"economics" (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica Online. [Retrieved on Mar 14, 2002 from the internet: http://www.search.eb.com/bol/topic?thes_id=9672&pm=1 ].

Edel Ph.D, May & Edel PhD., Abraham. (1959). Anthropology and Ethics. IL:Charles C. Thomas.

Friedman, Miles. (1994 Winter). NASDA and its members face the future together. Economic Development Review, 12(1). [online].

Frumkin, Peter; Andre-Clark, Alic. (1999 Sep/Oct). The Rise of the Corporate Social Worker. Society, 36(6). [online].

Hines Jr., James. (1999). Non-Profit Business Activity and the Unrelated Business Income Tax. NBER/Tax Policy & the Economy, 13(1). [online].

Internal Revenue Service. (n.d.). Tax Regulations. IRS.gov

Investor Responsibility Research Center. (2001). Purpose, Methodology and Limitations of IRRC's Corporate Environmental Profiles. IRRC.org. [Retrieved on Mar 15, 2002 from internet: http://www.irrc.org/eisweb/methodology.htm ]

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. (1995). World class: Thriving locally in the global economy. NY:Simon Schuster.

Kolzow, David R. (1994 Winter). Public/private partnership: The economic development organization of the 90s. Economic Development Review, 12(1). [online].

Milne, George R.; Lyer, Easwar S. (1996 Fall). Environmental organization alliance relationships within and across nonprofit, business and... Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15(2). [online].

Nevarez, Leonard. (2000 Nov). Corporate Philanthropy In The New Urban Economy: role of business-nonprofit realignment in regime politics. Urban Affairs Review, 36(2). [online].

Sansing, Richard C. (2001 April). In Search of Profits: measuring income from the unrelated commercial use of a tax exempt organization's assets. The Accounting Review, 76(2). [online].

Seibel, Wolfgang. (1996 Aug). Successful failure: alternative view on organizational coping. American Behavioral Scientist, 39(8). [online].

SocialFunds.com. (n.d.). Socially responsible investing information concerning corporations, mutual funds, and more. (n.d.). SocialFunds.com. [Retrieved Feb 27, 2002 from internet: http://SocialFunds.com/page.cgi/article1.html ].

"social science" (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica Online. [Retrieved on Mar 14, 2002 from the internet: http://www.search.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=117534&sctn=23&pm=1 ].

"sociobiology" (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica Online. [Retrieved on Mar 14, 2002 from the internet: http://www.search.eb.com/bol/topic?thes_id=359000&pm=1 ].

"sociology" (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica Online. [Retrieved on Mar 14, 2002 from the internet: http://www.search.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=117537&sctn=1&pm=1 ].

"systems engineering" (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica Online. [Retrieved on Mar 14, 2002 from the internet: http://www.search.eb.com/bol/topic?artcl=106308&seq_nbr=2&page=n&pm=1 ].

Thompson, Judith K.; Smith, Howard L. (1993 July). Charitable contributions by small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 31(3). [online].

Twiss, Pamela C.; Cooper, Pauline. (2000 July). Youths Revitalizing Main Street: case study. Social Work in Education, 22(3). [online].

Wheeler, Wendy. (2001 June). Emerging Organizational Theory and the Youth Development Organization. Applied Developmental Science, 4(3)sup 1. [online].

Woods, Mike D.; Smith, Tom Seth. (1997 Fall). Rural Enterprises Incorporated of Oklahoma: a case study... Economic Development Review, 15(3). [online].

Wry, Brann J. (1990 Summer). The Trustee: ultimate volunteer. Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society, 20(2). [online].