How We Help

CreateHope Inc., also of the District, provides a similar service through its Web-based software. The six-year-old firm started out with technology intended to simply automate the paperwork generated by corporate matching and volunteer programs. In response to customer concerns about the risks associated with donating to a large variety of firms, CreateHope added another layer to its software that checks organizations against anti-money-laundering and terror watch lists.

"It's hard to know the full dynamic of who you're giving to and what they're doing with the money," said Adam Goozh, CreateHope's chief executive. "This is basically a risk assessment."

Cone Inc., a 25-year-old consulting firm in Boston, was established to help companies pick causes that are aligned with their corporate missions, but in recent years there has been a growing emphasis on simply staying out of trouble, said Carol Cone, chief executive.

What companies want least, Cone and others say, is for their sponsorships to generate negative publicity that might drive away consumers.

Last month American Girl Inc., a Middleton, Wis., company that makes a popular line of dolls, became the target of a protest by a conservative group for its support of Girls Inc., a nonprofit organization that supports the empowerment of girls. The group, American Family Association, is threatening to launch a boycott because Girls Inc., it claims, is "pro-abortion, pro-lesbian."

In response, the company issued a statement expressing disappointment that the group had "chosen to misconstrue American Girl's purely altruistic efforts and turn them into a broader political statement on issues that we, as a corporation, have no position."

The Washington Post Co. found itself at the center of controversy earlier this year when it agreed to co-sponsor a Sept. 11 memorial event organized by the Department of Defense. Critics said the Freedom Walk would have a pro-war slant and cause readers to question the paper's objectivity -- and called for the company to withdraw its support. A spokesman for The Post pointed out that "there is a clear separation between the business and news sides of the newspaper." Nonetheless, the company did withdraw support in mid-August, instead opting to make a contribution to the Pentagon Memorial Fund.

Microsoft, long seen as progressive in its social policies, faced similar criticism in April when it withdrew support from a bill in Washington state that would have made discrimination against gays and lesbians in employment, insurance and housing illegal. Although the company denied it, detractors said the software giant succumbed to pressure from religious conservatives.

Some companies have come under fire for donations to organizations not even chosen by their corporate giving officers. In 2002, companies such as Cisco Systems Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. were slammed for matching employee contributions to the India Development and Relief Fund, a North Bethesda group accused of funding Hindu extremists. Cisco gave $70,000 to IDRF but later suspended its donations to the group.

Cisco's matching program was already under review when the allegations about IDRF came to light, according to Abby Smith, a spokeswoman for the networking equipment giant. Today the company has much tighter controls over its donations, she said, and nonprofit organizations must go through several levels of corporate approval before qualifying to receive funds from Cisco.

Even as some companies were experiencing the downside of social involvement, a broader realization emerged that strategic -- and uncontroversial -- giving programs can benefit a corporation's bottom line. All things being equal, about 86 percent of consumers say they chose to buy from companies known to support a cause, according to a study by Cone Inc.

As a result, companies are increasingly focused on charities that resonate with their consumer base rather than causes that are near and dear to the hearts of executives.