IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/afr111/v4y2015i1p151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Writes the Biggest Check for Charitable Care: A Comparison of For-Profit, Not-for-Profit, and Government Hospitals

Author

Listed:
  • John G. Irwin
  • Carmen C. Lewis
  • Cherie Fretwel
  • Randi E. Myers

Abstract

The current environment in the United States surrounding health care issues such as spending, costs, access, and affordability points toward a societal obligation to help provide for those who cannot pay the costs of their own care. Hospitals are often one of the largest employers in communities, and like many other organizations, view providing charitable care as an aspect of their corporate social responsibility (CSR). This study compares the recent levels of charitable care of for-profit, not-for-profit, and government hospitals. The authors attempt to determine which type of hospital is the most charitable, what the relationship between CSR and profitability may be, and the differences in the relationship between CSR and profitability for various hospital types. Data from a sample of 167 short-term, general hospitals were examined and results indicated that there were significant differences in CSR for government, not-for-profit and for-profit. Higher levels of CSR did not affect firm profitability, although significant interactions were found between control and CSR for varying levels of profitability.Â

Suggested Citation

  • John G. Irwin & Carmen C. Lewis & Cherie Fretwel & Randi E. Myers, 2015. "Who Writes the Biggest Check for Charitable Care: A Comparison of For-Profit, Not-for-Profit, and Government Hospitals," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 4(1), pages 151-151, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:jfr:afr111:v:4:y:2015:i:1:p:151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/download/6051/3754
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/view/6051
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles W. L. Hill & Thomas M. Jones, 1992. "Stakeholder‐Agency Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 131-154, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Du Jianguo & Rauf Ibrahim & Peter Lartey Yao & Rupa Jaladi Santosh & Amponsah Clinton Kwabena, 2019. "The Effectiveness of Internal Controls in Rural Community Banks: Evidence from Ghana," Business Management and Strategy, Macrothink Institute, vol. 10(1), pages 202-218, December.
    2. Anggita Langgeng WIJAYA & Ima Widha RATNASARI, 2023. "The Effect of the Audit Committee on the Firm Value of State-Owned Enterprises in Indonesia: The Mediation Role of Financial Performance," CECCAR Business Review, Body of Expert and Licensed Accountants of Romania (CECCAR), vol. 4(6), pages 60-72, June.
    3. Eduard Ary Binsar Naibaho & Amirah Mahdi Shahab, 2025. "The Role of Corporate Governance Mechanism and Sustainability Reporting in Firm Performance: Evidence on Resource Based Sectors," Advances in Management and Applied Economics, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 15(2), pages 1-4.
    4. Ghafoor, Abdul & Šeho, Mirzet & Sifat, Imtiaz, 2023. "Co-opted board and firm climate change risk," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    5. Estévez-Mendoza, Carlos & Montoro-Sánchez, Ángeles, 2024. "Exploring the relationship between innovation and corporate governance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    6. Ayman Hassan Bazhair & Mohammed Naif Alshareef, 2022. "Dynamic relationship between ownership structure and financial performance: a Saudi experience," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 2098636-209, December.
    7. Hannah Charlotte Joos, 2019. "Influences on managerial perceptions of stakeholder salience: two decades of research in review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 3-37, February.
    8. Zhou, Taiyun & Liu, Mingxuan & Zhang, Xiyu & Qi, Zheng & Qin, Ni, 2024. "Does institutional ownership affect corporate social responsibility? Evidence from China," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 84-98.
    9. Tariq Elrazaz & Ahmed Shaker Samaan & Moataz Elmassri, 2024. "Sustainable development goals: Sustainability reporting challenges in the United Arab Emirates context," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 3100-3114, August.
    10. Mariusz Zielinski & Izabela Jonek-Kowalska, 2020. "Profitability of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities from the Perspective of Corporate Social Managers," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 264-280.
    11. Aleksandra Gregorič & Thomas Poulsen, 2020. "When Do Employees Choose to Be Represented on the Board of Directors? Empirical Analysis of Board‐Level Employee Representation in Denmark," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 58(2), pages 241-272, June.
    12. Dodd, Olga & Frijns, Bart & Garel, Alexandre, 2022. "Cultural diversity among directors and corporate social responsibility," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    13. repec:osf:inarxi:t796p_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Guerini, Mattia & Harting, Philipp & Napoletano, Mauro, 2022. "Governance structure, technical change, and industry competition," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    15. Jose Luis Retolaza & Maite Ruiz & Leire San‐Jose, 2009. "CSR in business start‐ups: an application method for stakeholder engagement," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(6), pages 324-336, November.
    16. Pierre Baret & Vincent Helfrich, 2019. "The “trilemma” of non-financial reporting and its pitfalls," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(2), pages 485-511, June.
    17. Filippo Vitolla & Nicola Raimo & Michele Rubino & Antonello Garzoni, 2019. "How pressure from stakeholders affects integrated reporting quality," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1591-1606, November.
    18. Camélia Radu & Nadia Smaili, 2022. "Alignment Versus Monitoring: An Examination of the Effect of the CSR Committee and CSR-Linked Executive Compensation on CSR Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 145-163, September.
    19. Amon Simba & Mahdi Tajeddin & Léo-Paul Dana & Domingo E. Ribeiro Soriano, 2024. "Deconstructing involuntary financial exclusion: a focus on African SMEs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 285-305, January.
    20. Eva López‐González & Jennifer Martínez‐Ferrero & Emma García‐Meca, 2019. "Does corporate social responsibility affect tax avoidance: Evidence from family firms," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 819-831, July.
    21. Stephen J. Smulowitz & Didier Cossin & Hongze Lu, 2023. "Managerial Short-Termism and Corporate Social Performance: The Moderating Role of External Monitoring," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(4), pages 759-778, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jfr:afr111:v:4:y:2015:i:1:p:151. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sciedu Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.