The Inverted U‐Shaped Relationship between Corporate Philanthropy and Spending on Research and Development: A Case of Complementarity and Competition Moderated by Firm Size and Visibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Prior studies on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and innovation suggest either a competing or a complementary relationship between CSR and spending on research and development (R&D) activities. In this study, we unravel this puzzle by theorizing an inverted U‐shaped relationship between CSR in general and corporate philanthropy (CP) in particular, and R&D spending. Drawing mainly on stakeholder theory, we suggest that CP, by securing stakeholders’ support differently at different levels of spending, would first increase and then reduce R&D spending. Evidence from Chinese publicly traded companies during 2006–2015 well supports our arguments. In addition, we find this inverse U‐shaped non‐linear relationship between CP and R&D spending to be strengthened by firm visibility and weakened by firm size. This study has important theoretical and practical implications. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".