Implicit in Dees' continuum is the notion that accountability to key stakeholders is a function of organizational form. Although, socially responsible companies and venture philanthropies attempt to blend the best practices from each sector, critics forewarn of the tradeoffs that emerge when new organizational forms attempt to balance competition and incentives with the needs of key stakeholders. For example, exclusive vendor contracts between The Coca-ColaTM Company and Emory University in Atlanta, and ReebokTM Athletics and University of Wisconsin in Madison, have inexorably linked the image and culture of the cooperating organizations, raising important questions about public accountability, organizational autonomy and institutional integrity. These new forms beg the question: Do we want our public institutions to reflect the values of retail culture? Is there a difference between an organization's mission and a commercial jingle? Which organizational goal establishes priority: mission or profit? Where do we draw the line?
Whether collaborative or competitive, nonprofit commercial activity has rendered government, nonprofits and for-profits more interdependent than ever before. Commercialization challenges nonprofit organizations to balance mission, image and institutional integrity with the conditional promises of commercial revenue to fill the increasing gap in nonprofit funding. Such difficult choices hold promise, yet ultimately entail compromise.
Wary of such promise, Weisbrod (1998) asserts the need to maintain distinct organizational forms. Although its return on investment is somewhat difficult to measure, nonprofit organizational form serves as an important proxy for effectiveness, ensuring that resources are allocated and public goods are delivered according to an underlying value-based mission. Weisbrod issues a challenge to policymakers to develop alternative sources of revenue for nonprofits, so the sector can focus exclusively on its mission. Furthermore, the mission of nonprofits as community organizations that build civil society and social capital is also threatened when nonprofits move to a business model.15 It remains to be seen, however, how deeply commercialism will take hold for the majority of nonprofit organizations.
The Potential of Giving and Volunteering
Individual giving and volunteering are the "extra dimension" in American culture. After several years of small declines, volunteering has increased to 55 percent of the American adult population in 1998, up from 49 percent in 1995. Over 109 million adults volunteered providing 20 billion hours of time which is the equivalent of 9.3 full-time employees at a value of $226 billion dollars. About 70 percent of American households reported giving an average of $1,075 in 1998 or 2.1 percent of their household income to charitable causes. The bulk of these contributions (60 percent) went to religious congregations.16 In 1999, Giving USA reported that total contributions to charity were more than $190 billion, up 6.1 percent in inflation adjusted dollars over 1988. Individual giving was $134 billion or nearly 76 percent of total giving. Since 1980, the number of private foundations doubled from 22,000 to 47,000 in 1998. Giving by foundations increased 13.9 percent in inflation adjusted dollars from 1998 to $19.8 billion in 1999.17 However, since 1975, private giving as a percentage of total revenues of the nonprofit sector has declined since revenues from government and from private fees have increased faster than growth in private giving. It is expected that this trend will begin to reverse when new figures are available next year.
