ArticlePloS one2024
Effect of government's environmental attention on corporate philanthropy based on the institutional theory: Evidence from China's heavily polluting companies.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The underlying motivation behind corporate philanthropy (CP) is subject to multiple interpretations. For emerging markets, traditional interpretations based on a perspective of interest exchange often fall short. The institutional environment in China is characterized by uncertainty, particularly in the field of environmental protection, where the government's attention, a scarce institutional resource, can influence the behaviors of heavily polluting companies. The government's environmental attention (GEA) may be subject to campaign-style investment, which provides an opportunity for research. This study attempts to use institutional theory to construct a difference-in-differences model using the Central Inspection of Environmental Protection as an exogenous shock. It examines the causal impact of GEA on CP, observing that GEA has a positive effect on CP, especially for large companies, companies in less competitive industries, companies located in high-pollution areas, and companies with high environmental expenditure. The results indicate that campaign-style institutional changes provide a non-transactional political motivation for CP. In addition, we discuss the mechanism, which is the expectation change. Campaign-style institutional changes work by altering corporations' expectations of the future institutional environment. We verify this mechanism from two perspectives, namely, the intensity of changes caused by uncertainty and corporate sensitivity to changes. Our results remain robust when subject to several tests based on different identification hypotheses and alternative measures. Unlike the existing literature on the political connections driving CP in China, this study, based on the institutional theory framework, reveals that campaign-style institutional changes constitute a non-transactional, unidirectional political motivation, which is a significant driving factor for CP in a Chinese context. This study evaluates the importance of GEA and reveals the non-transactional political motivations from the institutional theory perspective. This not only enriches existing discussions on the political motivations of CP but also broadens our understanding of the relationship between institutional uncertainty and CP in emerging markets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.