An Introduction to Private Arts Funding

Arts funding

There are constant discussions surrounding arts funding. This is not new and is unlikely to change. These conversations can include what the purpose of art is, what the purpose of public funding is, what is expected from the arts in exchange for funding, and ethical questions around donations. This piece shall attempt, in the first instance, to briefly outline what is meant by arts funding and the different areas to consider. The focus shall, in particular, be on private arts funding and its different forms. Only once one has a clear idea about the different streams available can we attempt to then navigate the further landscape of arts funding and what can, should, and should not be done.

Types of arts funding

There are a number of different forms of arts funding which can be considered. These can be divided most clearly into three particular types. The first of the three principal forms of funding is public funding or government funding. The next form of funding for arts and cultural organisations pertains to earned income or funding derived from areas such as sales. This can include ticket sales, as well as other forms of earned income. The third area of arts funding is private funding, which is a broad term that can be broken down into different types. The most obvious of these might be arts philanthropy, but there are other areas of private funding that can be addressed. These include, for example, social investment, working within a business, and social banking with social forms of loans. Even within the sphere of philanthropy, there is a wide variety of different types of arts philanthropy. These include individual giving, trusts and foundations, corporate giving including areas related to this surrounding corporate social responsibility, crowdfunding, and legacy giving.

Arts funding	Examples
Arts philanthropy	Individual donors, membership schemes, crowdfunding, legacies
Trusts and foundations	Family foundations, community foundations, corporate foundations
Corporate	Corporate foundations, corporate social responsibility, marketing, advertising, sponsorship
Alternative	Venture philanthropy, social investment

  Figure 1: Gunson, Jonathan (2024). Potential types of arts funding.

Trusts and foundations

A prominent form of philanthropy that is utilised by cultural organisations is that of trusts and foundations. These foundations often have a historic role, including in the provision of welfare services, as well as social provision (Schuyt, 2010), and can take on a variety of different forms with terms such as foundations and trusts sometimes used interchangeably (Goodey and Hall, 2007). They can be divided into family foundations, corporate foundations, and community foundations (Pharoah, Goddard, and Jenkins, 2015).

There is, however, a concern with regard to foundations that expect these bodies to actually substitute – rather than complement – the state. This is an ever-growing issue as funding pressures bite and has potentially problematic implications on areas such as their statutory funding as well as potentially affecting their independence and shifting them away from their primary focus (Leat, 2008). In this sense, they may be expected to ‘pick up the slack’ where the state cuts back, which is not their fundamental role, what they consider to be their mission, and what their role and place in the funding landscape is.

Figure 2:  cottonbro studio (2021). A Volunteer Carrying a Box of Donations. https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-volunteer-carrying-a-box-of-donations-6591164/

When considering foundations in Europe, the assets should be for a specific purpose, and, indeed, for many, the law is that they must pursue public-benefit purposes, although in others, it is permitted to pursue other private purposes (European Foundation Centre, 2015). Interestingly, whilst foundations might be seen as donors, they often see themselves as partners, with their funding as collaboration on a common mission (Council on Foundations, European Foundation Centre, and WINGS, 2012). This is an area to be taken into account, given that a donation cannot simply be taken or viewed purely as a donation but may be in exchange for involvement of some form. Family foundations have family members on the board, and said members act as trustees of the organisation. In the United Kingdom, for example, support from foundations tends to come from family foundations (Pharoah, Goddard, and Jenkins, 2014a).

Individual philanthropy

When considering individual philanthropy, there are a number of different dimensions to be examined, ranging from low to high-level gifts. These can include friend’s schemes such as membership programmes which a cultural organisation may offer, providing discounts on tickets, food, drink, and merchandise, as well as advanced booking. This could also include tax incentives (Gaio, 2009) and legacies (Pharoah and Harrow, 2009), where a person leaves a gift in their will. Non-financial forms of philanthropy and individual ‘giving’, in a broader sense, can also be considered; for example, joining a board as a trustee is also a form of giving (Wu, 2002; Phillips, 2012).

Figure 3:  cottonbro studio (2021). Food and Drinks Inside the Carton Box. https://www.pexels.com/photo/food-and-drinks-inside-the-carton-box-6590920/

There are also a variety of factors and theories to be considered surrounding donor motivations (Gaio, 2009; Breeze, 2010; Phillips, 2012; Bagwell et al., 2013). These can encompass areas surrounding tastes, values, and outcomes, such as strategic philanthropy and philanthropy as an investment (Breeze, 2010; Kail, Simmons, and Bagwell, 2015; Phillips, 2012). These can also encompass areas such as entrepreneurial philanthropy (Maclean, Gordon, and Shaw, 2011) as well as theoretical underpinnings surrounding cultural capital and social class (Bourdieu, 1984; 1993).

Corporate and business finance

Businesses are also a valuable source of funding for cultural organisations. This is not a new area (Mirikitani, 1999; Leclair and Gordon, 2000; Frank and Geppert, 2002; Kirchberg, 2003; Moir and Taffler, 2004; Thomas and Nuttall, 2009; Schiuma, 2011; Daellenbach, 2012; Walker et al., 2012; Daellenbach, Thirkell, and Zander, 2013). These come as businesses use the arts for the purposes of sponsorship or corporate social responsibility. Questions then exist within this context as to whether such giving is purely philanthropic or whether it is marketing (Frank and Geppert, 2002). There can be both altruistic motivations and business-orientated motivations pertaining to advertising or marketing, and these are conversations and decisions that have to be assessed by the company concerned. These factors will play an important role in the decision-making process of a business or corporation when providing sponsorship. There are, as such, also ethical considerations for the cultural organisation as to whether they should accept a donation or not. 

Business benefits can be modelled around short-term financial support and long-term investment on one scale, and image and brand in contrast to corporate social responsibility and cultural production on a different scale (Comunion, 2009). On this understanding, when devising a corporate strategy for investment, short term support with an external focus might include areas such as sponsorship. Short-term support with an internal focus, on the other hand, might include training. Long-term investments with an internal focus might include corporate art collections, while long-term investments with an external focus might include cultural partnerships and corporate art awards (Comunion, 2009). Once again, there is a difference between arts philanthropy in a pure sense and arts sponsorship (Frank and Geppert, 2002). As such, context is vital even if terms are often used interchangeably and in sometimes unhelpful ways. It is also important to note the difference between giving to the cultural sector and to other potential charitable activities. This is also key for the arts, which are sometimes difficult to assess on a purely economic level (Klamer, 1996). Likewise, there are differences in expectations between the donor and the cultural organisations surrounding their involvement (Schanke, 2007).

The fundraising and artistic team can engage in these conversations. What are the limits and red lines for the organisation? What are the levels of involvement that the organisation is prepared to accept, even at the risk of the artistic integrity of the organisation? Again, what are the ethical implications of accepting donations from certain companies, and are there ethical red lines which the organisation is not prepared to cross?

Figure 4: RDNE Stock project (2021). A Cardboard Box with Food Label Beside a Charity Sign and Paper Cups. https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-cardboard-box-with-food-label-beside-a-charity-sign-and-paper-cups-6646847/

When considering philanthropy, it is worth considering its limitations, depending on the art form concerned. Some philanthropists may have a preference for ‘high arts’ such as opera and ballet, classical music, or the visual arts over alternative art forms or art which may be deemed controversial (Kail, Simmons, and Bagwell, 2015). Heritage may also prefer alternative forms of art for political or ideological reasons (Lindsköld, 2012). This is, of course, not limited to philanthropy. Cultural policy and public funding decisions are also driven by these limitations, changing according to the party and government in power and their particular policy or ideological priorities. Social welfare, national heritage, regeneration, the creative economy, and education are all areas that have impacted the direction of public funding and will be discussed in more detail during the research series when considering the recent history of arts funding and cultural policy. Corporate philanthropy can also include a class dimension or an element of cultural capital, seeking to raise their cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1984; 1993; Harvey et al., 2011). Finally, regional imbalances can be emphasised in corporate funding and individual philanthropy. Cities and, in particular, the capital cities, tend to be the focus of this funding over and above smaller towns and rural areas (Arts Council England and MTM, 2016; Phillips, 2012). It is no coincidence, therefore, that public funding and, where private, trusts and foundations, have to make up some of the slack when looking at more regional arts.

Alternative forms of arts financing

Beyond ‘pure’ philanthropy, at least in a broad sense, one can also consider other alternative forms of financing, which are not strictly speaking philanthropy in the traditional sense but nonetheless exist in the landscape of private support for the arts. For example, social investment is an area in which foundations are showing interest (Jeffery and Jenkins, 2013; Rotheroe et al., 2013; European Foundation Centre, 2014; Rotheroe and Joy, 2014; Harrison-Evans, 2015; Jenkins and Rogers, 2015). This is repayable finance, that is, with both a financial and social return or for the purpose of social impact (Harrison-Evans, 2015; Rotheroe et al., 2013). Further, social enterprises would be seen as using the profit of their entrepreneurship and innovation for social objectives (OECD/European Union 2013; European Commission 2011). As such, there is an element of risk in this form of financing. This can be helpful for organisations in the cultural sector because commercial sources may not be prepared to risk funding without clear guarantees in place. Social investment, however, may be prepared to take that risk.

This is the nature of the arts: it is precarious, with a high possibility of both risk and reward. As such, this form of financing holds particular potential and opportunity for arts, which may not be obviously available either through public funding - which does wish to spend taxpayers' money unwisely - or on traditional philanthropy or corporate funding, where the benefits may not be obvious.

Social investment can also be divided into subsections, just as other forms of financing can. These might include solidarity finance, venture philanthropy, institutional investors, individual investors, quasi-equity and equity instruments, ethical or social markets, and crowdfunding (OECD/European Union, 2013), as well as secured loans, unsecured loans, charity bonds, and equity (Harrison-Evans, 2015). It is, however, not possible to make straightforward divisions due to crossovers among them. Corporate funding may be connected with the state, government incentives may be directed towards philanthropy, and social investment and social enterprise may involve elements of philanthropy and business. These alternative models of finance are not entirely separate –they exist, as do the others, on the landscape of arts funding–.

Figure 5: RDNE Stock project (2021). Brown Cardboard Box With White and Black Label. https://www.pexels.com/photo/brown-cardboard-box-with-white-and-black-label-6646863/

In this alternative landscape of financing, another area of consideration is venture philanthropy, drawing as it does and bringing together ideas in both philanthropy and venture capitalism. Venture philanthropy aims to provide both financial and non-financial support to their investee organisations with a societal purpose –or SPOs– using financing instruments including grants, equity, and debt for the purpose of societal impact (Hehenberger, Boiardi, and Gianoncelli, 2014). It includes high engagement between management and venture philanthropists; organisational capacity building, which builds the capacity of portfolio organisations through the funding of core operating costs as opposed to individual projects; tailored financing, which focuses on the needs of the organisation; non-financial support such as value-added services such as strategic planning; the involvement of networks that provide skill-sets and resources; multi-year support; impact measurement (Hehenberger, Boiardi, and Gianoncelli, 2014).

Therefore, there is potential for cultural organisations to expand into this area and for venture philanthropists to engage with the arts and culture. Indeed, there is already some recognition of this collaboration. Gillies and Minkiewicz (2013) identify catalytic philanthropy as a potential alternative to more traditional methods of philanthropy and fundraising within the arts and culture, which involves building relationships across sectors and seeks measurable impact. The emphasis is as much on the funder as the cultural organisations when considering success. This will require the cultural organisations to understand the different motivations not simply for those engaging with the arts and culture, but for those engaging in the field of venture philanthropy.

Figure 6: Vision plug. (2023). Long Exposure Photo of a Red Bus on a Street in Piccadilly Circus, London, England, UK. https://www.pexels.com/photo/long-exposure-photo-of-a-red-bus-on-a-street-in-piccadilly-circus-london-england-uk-15257856/

This is an interesting and exciting opening for the cultural sector to explore, and one which may not only provide financial capital but also break the requirements and limitations placed on them by both the public and philanthropic sectors in their traditional forms. It will also allow them to develop a business skill set that they may be lacking through traditional fundraising. 

A path for a financially sustainable and successful cultural sector that does not rely solely on ever-changing policies of public funding in increasingly difficult financial circumstances, the particular demands or values of philanthropists, or the ethical questions around some corporations is important. Whether it be cultural organisations engaging in social investment to bring together social and financial impact or venture philanthropists working with the cultural sector, alternative forms of arts financing may provide this path.

It is interesting to consider once again how the region-specific characteristics emerge. Just as in Europe, corporations are also sometimes closer to the state, and likewise with foundations, whilst venture philanthropy often sits in opposition to traditional philanthropic models in an American context, when considering the European context, there is interest from charitable foundations as to how their investments can be aligned with their cause in new ways (Buckland, Hehenberger, and Hay, 2013).

Concluding thoughts

Traditional philanthropy can be seen as often being focused on particular causes, funded by large private donors, or businesses, and can involve corporate and community foundations. Just as in Europe, corporations and foundations are sometimes closer to the state. Whilst venture philanthropy often sits in opposition to traditional philanthropic models in an American context, the European ones seem to gain attention from charitable foundations as to how their investments can be aligned with their cause in new ways.

Donations can be large or small, may be one-off or given on a more regular basis, and can be related to membership schemes, tax incentives, trustee giving, or personal taste, with a growing interest in values-based philanthropy. Corporate giving might be motivated by CSR –or corporate social responsibility– as well as branding or sponsorship. The business model concerned might also vary on account of its environment and the extent to which it relates to foundations, such as corporate foundations and the state. Finally, alternative forms of financing, such as social investment or ethical lending, may be driven by returns and have both a social and a business orientation when assessing investment. This can involve specialist banks and intermediaries or can include areas such as tax incentives and schemes. This piece has, therefore, attempted to outline the key forms of private arts funding.

Bibliographical References

Arts Council England and MTM. (2016). Private Investment in Culture Survey: 2012/13. 2013/14, and 2014/15.

Bagwell, S., De Las Casas, L., Van Poortvliet, M., & Abercrombie, R. (2013). Money for Good UK: Understanding Donor Motivation and Behaviour. New Philanthropy Capital. https://npproduction.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MONEY-FOR-GOOD-UK.pdf?_gl=1*1u7wejx*_ga*MTgwODQyNzQwMS4xNzM3NzcwNjU0*_ga_5Q3PNDTP66*MTczNzgxMTYyNi4yLjEuMTczNzgxMjI0Mi42MC4wLjA.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production. Polity Press.

Breeze, B. (2010). How Donors Choose Charity: Findings of a Study of Donor Perceptions of the Nature and Distribution of Charitable Benefit. Alliance Publishing Trust. https://www.cgap.org.uk/uploads/reports/HowDonorsChooseCharities.pdf

Buckland, L., Hay, M., & Hehenberger, L. (2013). The Growth of European Venture Philanthropy. Stanford Social Innovation Review. http://www.projetvisesproject.eu/IMG/pdf/buckland_et_al_2013_european_venture_philanthropy.pdf

Comunian, R. (2009). Toward a New Conceptual Framework for Business Investments in the Arts: Some Examples from Italy. The Journal of Arts Management Law and Society, 39(3), 200–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632920903218521

Council on Foundations, European Foundation Centre (EFC), & Worldwide Initiatives for Grantmaker Support (WINGS). (2012). Building on Strengths: The Dynamics of Partnership between Multilaterals and Public Benefit Foundations. Council on Foundations; European Foundation Centre (EFC); Worldwide Initiatives for Grantmaker Support (WINGS). https://wings.issuelab.org/resources/14757/14757.pdf

Daellenbach, K. (2012). Understanding the decision‐making processes for arts sponsorship. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(4), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1432

Daellenbach, K., Thirkell, P., & Zander, L. (2013). Examining the Influence of the Individual in Arts Sponsorship Decisions. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 25(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2013.759819

European Commission. (2011). Social Business Initiative - Creating a favourable climate for social enterprises, key stakeholders in the social economy and innovation. https://www.fi-compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/social-business-initiative-creating-a-favourable-climate-for-social-enterprises-key-stakeholders-in-the-social-economy-and-innovation.pdf

European Foundation Centre. (2014). Making Your Money Work Harder: Social investment practices - An introduction for foundations. https://search.issuelab.org/resources/20570/20570.pdf

European Foundation Centre. (2015). Comparative Highlights of Foundation Laws: The Operating Environment for Foundations in Europe. https://www.vlgst.li/application/files/9715/5352/3383/Comparative_Highlights_of_Foundation_Laws_0.pdf

Fisher, T. C. G., & Preece, S. B. (2003). Determinants of Corporate Support for the Arts: Empirical Evidence from Canada. In The Seventh International Conference on Arts & Cultural Management Milan, Italy June 29- July 2, 2003. School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University. http://ernest.hec.ca/video/pedagogie/gestion_des_arts/AIMAC/2003/resources/pdf/C/C02_Fisher_Preece.pdf

Frank, B., & Geppert, K. (2002). Corporate donations to the arts: philanthropy or advertising? (DIW Discussion Papers, No. 307). Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), German Institute for Economic Research. https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.38586.de/dp307.pdf

Gaio, A. (2009). Local Pride: Individual Giving to the Arts in England. Arts & Business. https://www.culturehive.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Individual-Giving-Donor-Motivations-1.pdf

Gillies, L., & Minkiewicz, J. (2013). Arts Philanthropy: Towards a Better Practice Model. Melbourne Business School. https://www.philanthropy-impact.org/sites/default/files/downloads/Arts_Philanthropy_report_FINAL.pdf

Gillies, L., York, J., & Minkiewicz, J. (2017). Philanthropy: Towards a Better Practice Model. Asia Pacific Social Impact Centre, University of Melbourne. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2018-05/apo-nid172741.pdf

Goodey, L., & Hall, T. (2007). Grantmaking by UK Trusts and Charities. Charities Aid Foundation and Association of Charitable Foundations.

Grossman, A., Appleby, S., & Reimers, C. (2013). Venture Philanthropy: Its Evolution and its Future (No. N9-313–111). Harvard Business School. https://avpn.asia/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/VP_Its_Evolution_and_Its_Future_6_13_13_copy.pdf

Harrison-Evans, P. (2015). New Funding Sources: An Introduction for Trustees. New Philanthropy Capital. https://npproduction.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NPC-Trustee-Briefing-New-funding-sources-website.pdf?_gl=1*1cc9pkd*_ga*MTgwODQyNzQwMS4xNzM3NzcwNjU0*_ga_5Q3PNDTP66*MTczNzgxMTYyNi4yLjEuMTczNzgxMjkxNC42MC4wLjA.

Harvey, C., Maclean, M., Gordon, J., & Shaw, E. (2011). Andrew Carnegie and the foundations of contemporary entrepreneurial philanthropy. Business History, 53(3), 425–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2011.565516

Hehenberger, L., Boiardi, P., & Gianoncelli, A. (2014). European Venture Philanthropy and Social Investment 2013/2014: The EVPA Survey. European Venture Philanthropy Association. https://www.impacteurope.net/sites/www.evpa.ngo/files/publications/EVPA_Survey_2013-2014.pdf

Jeffery, N., & Jenkins, R. (2013). Research Briefing: Charitable Trusts and Foundations’ Engagement in the Social Investment Market. Association of Charitable Foundations. https://acf.org.uk/common/Uploaded%20files/Research%20and%20resources/Resources/Investment/Engagement_in_the_Social_Investment_Market.pdf

Kail, A., Simmonds, L., & Bagwell, S. (2015). The Art of Philanthropy: Making the most of Your Giving to the Arts. New Philanthropy Capital. https://npproduction.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/The-art-of-philanthropy.pdf?_gl=1*1s4y9xj*_ga*MTgwODQyNzQwMS4xNzM3NzcwNjU0*_ga_5Q3PNDTP66*MTczNzgxMTYyNi4yLjEuMTczNzgxMjM1Ny42MC4wLjA.

Kirchberg, V. (2003). Corporate Arts Sponsorship. In A Handbook of Cultural Economics (pp. 143–151). https://repub.eur.nl/pub/783/TOWSE%20EBOOK_pages0155-0163.pdf

Klamer, A. (1996). The Value of Culture: On the Relationship between Economics and Arts. Amsterdam University Press.

Leat, D. (2008). Foundations and Policy Influence in Europe. In N. MacDonald & L. T. A. De Borms (Eds.), Philanthropy in Europe: A Rich Past, a Promising Future (pp. 259–272). Alliance Publishing Trust. http://www.familyphilanthropy.ch/uploads/1/0/6/4/10642206/philanthropy-in-europe-a-rich-past-a-promising-future.pdf

LeClair, M. S., & Gordon, K. (2000). Corporate Support for Artistic and Cultural Activities: What Determines the Distribution of Corporate Giving? Journal of Cultural Economics, 24(3), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007686500896

Lindsköld, L. (2015). Contradicting Cultural Policy: - A comparative study of the cultural policy of the Scandinavian radical right. Nordisk Kulturpolitisk Tidskrift, 18(1), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn2000-8325-2015-01-02

Mirikitani, C. (1999). The Role of Philanthropy in the Intersection between Culture and Commerce. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 29(2), 128–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632929909597296

Moir, L., & Taffler, R. (2004). Does Corporate Philanthropy Exist?: Business Giving to the Arts in the U.K. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-1777-1

OECD/European Commission. (2013). Policy brief on social entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial activities in Europe. In OECD Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) Papers, No. 2013/16. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/13d53589-en

Pharoah, C., Goddard, K., & Jenkins, R. (2015). Giving Trends Top 100 Family Foundations 2015 Report: Key Facts and Figures on Giving, Income and Assets in the Top 100 Family Foundations Ranked by Grant-Making. Association of Charitable Foundations. https://www.acf.org.uk/common/Uploaded%20files/Research%20and%20resources/Research/Foundation%20Giving%20Trends/Family_Foundation_Giving_Trends_2015_FINAL.pdf

Pharoah, C., & Harrow, J. (2009). Charitable Legacies in an Environment of Change. The Smith Institute. http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CharitableLegaciesinanEnvironmentofChange.pdf

Pharoah, C., Jenkins, R., & Goddard, K. (2014a). Family Foundation 2014 Giving Trends: 6th Edition of the Annual Report on Private Giving by UK Family Foundations. Association of Charitable Foundations. https://philea.issuelab.org/resources/18519/18519.pdf

Pharoah, C., Jenkins, R., & Goddard, K. (2014b). Giving Trends Top 300 Foundations 2014 Report: Key Facts and Figures on Giving, Income and Assets in the Top 300 UK Charitable Foundations. Association of Charitable Foundations. https://www.acf.org.uk/common/Uploaded%20files/Research%20and%20resources/Research/Foundation%20Giving%20Trends/Giving_Trends_Top_300_Foundations_2014.pdf

Pharoah, C., Jenkins, R., & Goddard, K. (2015). Giving Trends Top 300 Foundation Grant- Makers 2015 Report: Key Facts and Figures on Giving, Income and Assets in the Top 300 UK Independent Charitable Foundations Ranked by Grant-Making. Association of Charitable Foundations. https://www.acf.org.uk/common/Uploaded%20files/Research%20and%20resources/Research/Foundation%20Giving%20Trends/Foundation_Giving_Trends_2015.pdf

Philanthropy Europe Association. (2022). Comparative Highlights of Foundation Laws: The Operating Environment for Foundations in Europe. https://philea.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ComparativeHighlightsOfFoundationLaw22.pdf

Phillips, P. S. (2012). Philanthropy Beyond London: A Report Commissioned by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7565c640f0b6397f35e1cb/philanthropy_in_the_regions.pdf

Rotheroe, A., Hedley, S., Lomax, P., & Joy, I. (2013). Best to Invest? A Funders’ Guide to Social Investment. New Philanthropy Capital. https://npproduction.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Best-to-Invest-final2.pdf?_gl=1*y2cp9n*_ga*MTgwODQyNzQwMS4xNzM3NzcwNjU0*_ga_5Q3PNDTP66*MTczNzgxMTYyNi4yLjEuMTczNzgxMjE0NS40Ni4wLjA.

Rotheroe, A., & Joy, I. (2014). Smart Money: Understanding the Impact of Social Investment. New Philanthropy Capital. https://npproduction.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Smart-money_Understanding-the-impact-of-social-investment-FINAL.pdf?_gl=1*dyuxbq*_ga*MTgwODQyNzQwMS4xNzM3NzcwNjU0*_ga_5Q3PNDTP66*MTczNzgxMTYyNi4yLjEuMTczNzgxMjA3My4yMy4wLjA.

Schanke, R. A. (Ed.). (2007). Angels in the American Theater: Patrons, Patronage, and Philanthropy. Southern Illinois University Press.

Schiuma, G. (2011). The Value of Arts for Business. Cambridge University Press.

Schuyt, T. N. M. (2010). Philanthropy in European welfare states: a challenging promise? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(4), 774–789. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852310381218

Thomas, S. R., Pervan, S. J., & Nuttall, P. J. (2009). Marketing orientation and arts organisations: the case for business sponsorship. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 27(6), 736–752. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500910988654

Walker, C., Pharoah, C., Marmolejo, M., & Lillya, D. (2012). CGAP Briefing Note 9: UK Corporate Citizenship in the 21st Century. Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy. https://www.cgap.org.uk/uploads/Briefing%20Notes/CGAP%20BN9%20Corporate%20Giving.pdf

Wu, C. (2002). Privatising Culture: Corporate Art Intervention since the 1980s. Verso.

Tables

Visual References