mutual-benefit non-profit corporation

Examples of mutual-benefit non-profit corporation in the following topics:

• Management in Different Types of Business: For-Profit, Non-Profit, and Mutual-Benefit

  • A mutual-benefit non-profit corporation can be non-profit or for profit.
  • However, mutual benefit corporations are usually formed for nonprofit purposes like managing a condo association, a downtown business district, or a homeowners association.
  • The management of all three types of organizations (for-profit, non-profit, and mutual-benefit) may have similar responsibilities, such as drafting a budget and ensuring that the organization generates enough revenue to fulfill its operational needs.
  • This strategy cannot work for a non-profit or mutual-benefit corporation.
  • In those cases, management must either appeal to the employees' sense of duty to the mission of the non-profit or to the benefit they would receive from a well-run mutual-benefit corporation.

• Societal Role and Nonprofits

  • While for-profit organizations exist to produce profit, non-profit institutions exist to benefit a society, regardless of whether profits are achieved.
  • Non-profits are allowed to generate revenue, but must do so in specific ways to maintain their non-profit status.
  • Corporations also use mission-driven marketing to promote the goals of the organization as outlined in its mission statement and to communicate the benefits of achieving those goals to its stakeholders.
  • Cause marketing or cause-related marketing activities involve the collaboration of for-profit businesses and non-profit organizations for mutual benefit.
  • Identify, from a marketing perspective the societal role of non-profit organizations as stand alone organizations and in collaboration with for profit companies, and how a marketing message can be used as a benefit to consumers and society

• Types of Organizations

  • There are a variety of types of organizations, including for-profits, non-profits, volunteer associations, and corporations.
  • They can be either for-profit or non-profit.
  • A non-government for-profit corporation is owned by its shareholders, who elect a board of directors to direct the corporation and hire its managerial staff.
  • That is, the organization itself can make a profit, but the funds must not be used to benefit its owners.
  • Associations may take the form of a non-profit organization or a not-for-profit corporation, so communication structures and strategies for small and large non-profit and for-profit organizations may apply.

• Corporations

  • And they generally offer more varied job opportunities and greater job stability, higher wages, and better health and retirement benefits.
  • Owners of a corporation also have limited financial liability; they are not responsible for corporate debts, for instance.
  • Because corporate stock is transferable, a corporation is not damaged by the death or disinterest of a particular owner.
  • (Since the corporation already has paid taxes on its earnings, critics say that taxing dividend payments to shareholders amounts to "double taxation" of corporate profits. )
  • By the mid-1990s, more than 40 percent of U.S. families owned common stock, directly or through mutual funds or other intermediaries.

• Unique Issues in Nonprofit Marketing Strategies

  • Non-profits' marketing strategies enable them to focus on maximizing revenues in order to reach their goals rather than for profits.
  • A non-profit organization's (NPO) business goals tend to focus on the "organizational mission," which is the basis for the organization's governmental status or its non-profit, tax-exempt status.
  • However, non-profits may also focus marketing efforts on optimizing revenue.
  • The primary difference between for-profit and non-profit organizations is that for-profit organizations try to maximize wealth, while non-profit organizations look to provide a greater good to society.
  • Explain how the marketing strategies of non-profits differ from those of for-profit organizations

• Arguments for and against Corporate Social Responsibility

  • Corporate social responsibility, also referred to as CSR, can be described as embracing responsibility for a company's actions and encouraging a positive impact through its activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, and other stakeholders.
  • While some evidence links CSR practices to business performance, most organizations point to the non-financial benefits of their efforts.
  • CSR proponents may also argue for the recognition of a "triple bottom line" performance that includes not only financial returns for owners but also social and environmental benefits for the greater society.
  • Rather, CSR opponents believe that corporations benefit society best by distributing profits to owners, who can then make charitable donations or take other socially responsible actions as they see fit.
  • Critics view these as misleading, even cynical, attempts to shape public perception about a company without its actually having to benefit the environment.

• Pros and Cons of a Partnership

  • The partnership structure has the benefit of simplicity and control but the drawback of personal liability for the partnership's activities.
  • The partners are taxed individually on their share of the partnership's profits.
  • By default, profits are shared equally among the partners.
  • The partnership is not a separate entity from the owners/entrepreneurs, unlike a corporation.
  • If the mutual consent to form a partnership breaks down, the partnership breaks down as well; partnerships are considered to be an aggregate of their partners rather than a separate entity.

• Corporate Social Responsibility and sustainable development defined

  • Corporate social responsibility involves the conduct of a business so that it is economically profitable, law abiding, ethical and socially supportive.
  • In 1991, Carroll presented his CSR model as a pyramid, and suggested that although the components are not mutually exclusive, it "helps the manager to see that the different types of obligations are in constant tension with one another" (Carroll, 1979).
  • There is no indication that CSR (corporate wealth maximization) and profitability (stockholder wealth maximization) are mutually exclusive (Czinkota, 2005).
  • The principles established by this organization are adopted voluntarily, and thus its reach is limited since non-compliance cannot be sanctioned.
  • Carroll's CSR Pyramid: A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance.

• Glossary

  • Agribusiness: A term that reflects the large, corporate nature of many farm enterprises in the modern U.S. economy.
  • Also used to refer to corporate equity, debt securities, and cash.
  • Dividend: Money earned on stock holdings; usually, it represents a share of profits paid in proportion to the share of ownership.
  • Fringe benefit: An indirect, non-cash benefit provided to employees by employers in addition to regular wage or salary compensation, such as health insurance, life insurance, profit-sharing, and the like.
  • Mutual fund: An investment company that continually offers new shares and buys existing shares back on demand and uses its capital to invest in diversified securities of other companies.

• Profit and Stakeholders

  • In older input-output models of the corporation, the firm converts the inputs of investors, employees, and suppliers into salable outputs which customers buy, thereby returning some capital benefit to the firm.
  • Examples of non-market stakeholders include the general public, communities, activist groups, business support groups, or the media.
  • Stakeholders, as opposed to shareholders, tend to focus on corporate responsibility over corporate profitability.
  • Stakeholders believe that an organization should strive to achieve satisfaction among all parties involved, as opposed to solely pursuing the highest profit.
  • While the stakeholder view has an increased cost, many firms have decided that the concept improves their image, increases sales, reduces the risks of liability for corporate negligence, and makes them less likely to be targeted by pressure groups, campaigning groups and NGOs (non-governmental organizations).