The Dual Labor Effects of Corporate Philanthropy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the proposition that the specific social causes targeted by corporate philanthropy influence its effects on labor performance. We introduce a categorization based on social psychology, distinguishing between welfare-shocks philanthropy, aimed at providing welfare restitution for victims of disruptions, and chronic-conditions philanthropy, focused on welfare improvement for those facing longstanding problems. Our experimental evidence demonstrates that exposure to welfare-shocks philanthropy significantly enhances workers’ production, accuracy, and efficiency. In contrast, labor performance tends to decrease under chronic-conditions philanthropy and remains unchanged in the absence of philanthropy. These results broadly generalize in matched difference-in-difference estimates spanning 12 years of philanthropic activity by U.S. corporations. Our findings suggest that not all philanthropic efforts are equally motivating for employees and underscore the strategic importance of the philanthropic focus in influencing labor performance, both positively and negatively. Consequently, this study helps reconcile previous varying results regarding the strategic value of corporate philanthropy, offering a nuanced understanding of how this non-financial incentive can shape workforce dynamics and guide the design of more effective philanthropic strategies.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".