Assessing the impact of the sustainable development goals on corporate philanthropy: A study of Canada's leading private sector companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper examines the impact of the United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs) on community investment (CI), otherwise known as corporate philanthropic expenditures, among Canada's leading private sector companies. The study investigates whether there have been discernible shifts in CI relative to net profit after tax (NPAT) before and after the introduction of the SDGs in 2015, and whether corporations' commitment to the SDGs and/or membership in the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) have resulted in material increases to CI expenditures. The analysis is based on descriptive statistics, comparing the mean and standard deviation of CI as a percentage of NPAT across 58 firms included in our study. The findings reveal a minor decrease in CI as a percentage of NPAT following the introduction of the SDGs and lower average CI amounts among corporations committed to the SDGs and firms with UNGC membership. This paper offers an interpretive analysis of the results, highlighting the implications of potential greenwashing and the importance of corporate transparency. Further, we emphasize the need for policies to ensure genuine corporate financial commitment to socioeconomic and environmental causes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".