Substantive Action and Communication in Corporate Philanthropy: Implications of Hypocrisy and Stakeholder Type
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study investigates the differential effects of corporate philanthropy (CP) on internal and external stakeholders. Specifically, it examines how substantive CP actions (hereafter CP), communication about CP (hereafter CP communication) and hypocritical CP (the gap between communication and action) influence corporate reputation and employee job satisfaction, and how these effects are moderated by the firm's primary customer type (B2B vs. B2C) for both outcomes. This study collects and analyses data on Korean companies. Specifically, the corporate reputation scores from Korea's Most Admirable Company survey and the job satisfaction scores from Job Planet for listed companies in Korea are used for empirical analysis. Finally, 615 company‐years are analysed using partial least squares structural equation modelling. Multigroup analysis was employed to compare B2B and B2C companies. The research indicates that both CP and CP communication positively influence corporate reputation and employee job satisfaction. However, hypocritical CP negatively affects only employee job satisfaction, highlighting the differential impact of CP dimensions on different stakeholder groups. Furthermore, the negative impact of hypocritical CP on job satisfaction was found to be significantly stronger for B2C companies compared to B2B companies. No significant difference was found for the impact of hypocritical CP on corporate reputation between B2B and B2C firms. Grounded in stakeholder theory, this study advances our understanding of hypocritical CP by demonstrating its nuanced effects on different stakeholder types and across different business contexts (B2B vs. B2C). This research provides valuable insights for companies seeking to optimize their CP strategies for improved stakeholder engagement and corporate outcomes.
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 | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".