Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022;178(2):415-428.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04807-2. Epub 2021 Apr 10.

Putting the "Love of Humanity" Back in Corporate Philanthropy: The Case of Health Grants by Corporate Foundations

Muhammad Umar Boodoo #  1 , Irene Henriques #  2 , Bryan W Husted #  3
Affiliations

Putting the "Love of Humanity" Back in Corporate Philanthropy: The Case of Health Grants by Corporate Foundations

Muhammad Umar Boodoo et al. J Bus Ethics. 2022.

Abstract

With the growing call for private sector actors to address global challenges, it is necessary to first assess whether regions with the greatest needs are accessing corporate philanthropy. In this paper, we ask whether corporate philanthropy is reaching those with the greatest health-care needs. Drawing on economic geography and corporate homophily, we argue that corporate philanthropy tends to exacerbate health inequality as grants are destined for counties with fewer health problems. We test and find support for this hypothesis using data on health grants made by US corporate foundations and county-level health data. Our results that corporate health grants are less likely to go to counties which have a lower proportion of medical service providers and insured citizens suggest that corporate foundations are unwittingly complicit in worsening the resource gap between small, poor, rural counties and large, wealthy, urban counties. From an ethical perspective, we provide some guidance as to how this may be corrected.

Keywords: Corporate philanthropy; Corporate social responsibility (CSR); Health grants; Health inequality; Homophily.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Proportion of counties per the urban–rural classification, that received health grants
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Grants per head by type of county
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Distribution of the log of (non-zero) health grants
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ashley SR. Is the inequality equitable? An examination of the distributive equity of philanthropic grants to rural communities. Administration & Society. 2014;46(6):684–706. doi: 10.1177/0095399712469196. - DOI
    1. Barnett ML, Henriques I, Husted BW. Beyond good intentions: Designing CSR initiatives for greater social impact. Journal of Management. 2020;46(6):937–964. doi: 10.1177/0149206319900539. - DOI
    1. Belotti F, Deb P, Manning WG, Norton EC. Twopm: Two-part models. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata. 2015;15(1):3–20. doi: 10.1177/1536867X1501500102. - DOI
    1. Boschma R. Editorial: Role of proximity in interaction and performance: Conceptual and empirical challenges. Regional Studies. 2005;39(1):41–45. doi: 10.1080/0034340052000320878. - DOI
    1. Burke L, Logsdon JM. How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning. 1996;29(4):495–502. doi: 10.1016/0024-6301(96)00041-6. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources