Skip to content
Client area
EN
Request a demo
CSR · Corporate Social Responsibility · programme 06

Encourage corporate philanthropy

Put the team's skills to work for a charitable project.

Why this programme

Your teams have skills a charity would dream of having. The programme puts them face to face with a real need: understand the project, propose a contribution, commit. The charity features in the cinematic sequences and can also be there in the room.

Man is by nature a political animal.

AristotleGreek philosopherPolitics, Book I, 1253a, 4th century BC

What your teams experience

  1. The need: discover the charitable project and what is at stake through a discovery game.
  2. Our strengths: each team takes stock of the skills it can offer.
  3. The proposal: set out a concrete contribution with a realistic timeline.
  4. The commitment: the room votes for the proposals to launch first.

Each activity opens and closes with a projected cinematic sequence, personalised for your teams. The facilitator sets the pace: nothing moves forward without them.

What the company gains

A skills-based volunteering project born in the room, led by identified volunteers.

1.1°C

Global surface warming in 2011–2020 above 1850–1900, unequivocally caused by human activities.

IPCCClimate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers, A.1, 2023

How we tailor it to you

Your wording, departments, figures and photos are built into the challenges and cinematic sequences, to the letter. The look follows your brand guidelines. Teams are formed on the spot or based on your organisation chart. The session report is delivered to you after the event.

The sources of this programme

Every game, measure and reminder in this programme builds on published research. The facilitator cites it in the debriefs, and you can check every reference.

  1. Rodell, J. B., Breitsohl, H., Schröder, M., & Keating, D. J. (2016). Employee volunteering: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 42(1), 55-84. 10.1177/0149206315614374
  2. Grant, A. M. (2012). Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 589-615. 10.5465/amr.2010.0280
  3. Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516-1530. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1516
  4. Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A., & Jiang, K. (2013). Win–win–win: The influence of company-sponsored volunteerism programs on employees, NGOs, and business units. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 825-860. 10.1111/peps.12019
  5. Rodell, J. B. (2013). Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and what does it mean for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1274-1294. 10.5465/amj.2012.0611
  6. Bode, C., Singh, J., & Rogan, M. (2015). Corporate social initiatives and employee retention. Organization Science, 26(6), 1702-1720. 10.1287/orsc.2015.1006
  7. Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 857-878. 10.1348/096317909X477495
  8. Booth, J. E., Park, K. W., & Glomb, T. M. (2009). Employer-supported volunteering benefits: Gift exchange among employers, employees, and volunteer organizations. Human Resource Management, 48(2), 227-249. 10.1002/hrm.20277
The foundations shared by all our programmes (19 references)

The mechanics of our sessions: team play, the debrief, the before-and-after measure, spaced reminders.

  1. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
  2. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273-291. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027249440500054X
  3. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260. 10.1080/13504620220145401
  4. Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The intention–behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503-518. 10.1111/spc3.12265
  5. Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14-25. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494406000909
  6. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
  7. Truelove, H. B., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014). Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, 127-138. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004
  8. Clayton, S., & Karazsia, B. T. (2020). Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 101434. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494419307145
  9. Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, R. E., Mayall, E. E., et al. (2021). Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: A global survey. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(12), e863-e873. www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00278-3/fulltext
  10. Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932-968. 10.1177/0149206311436079
  11. Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 144. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00144
  12. République tunisienne (2018). Loi n° 2018-35 du 11 juin 2018, relative à la responsabilité sociétale des entreprises. Journal officiel de la République tunisienne, n° 2018-049 (texte légal). www.legislation.tn/fr/detailtexte/Loi-num-2018-35-du-11-06-2018-jort-2018-049__2018049000351
  13. République tunisienne (2025). Contribution déterminée au niveau national (CDN 3.0), soumise à la CCNUCC (rapport). unfccc.int/sites/default/files/2026-04/Document%20CDN3.0%20-version%20Finale.pdf
  14. Commission européenne (2011). Responsabilité sociale des entreprises : une nouvelle stratégie de l'UE pour la période 2011-2014, COM(2011) 681 (rapport). www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/com/com_com(2011)0681_/com_com(2011)0681_en.pdf
  15. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
  16. Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231-245. 10.1177/0018720812448394
  17. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus. JPSP, 64(2), 243-256. 10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243
  18. Galton, F. (1907). Vox populi. Nature, 75, 450-451. 10.1038/075450a0
  19. Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489-528. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01190.x

Before you book

What is digital team building?

A team building session in which teams play challenges on participants' phones while a big screen shows the running order, the scores and the cinematic sequences. A facilitator runs the room from start to finish. Everything happens in person.

Do we need to install an app?

No. Participants scan a QR code and play in their phone's browser. No account, no password, no installation. It works on iPhone and Android.

Is there a limit on the number of participants?

No. The platform adapts to your headcount, from a small team to the whole company, in one or several rooms.

Demo

See “Encourage corporate philanthropy” in action.

Thirty minutes on your premises. You play a challenge and see the report at the end.

Request a demo