Table 3.
Factors driving actor perceptions
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Understandable | Incentives | Social valorization | Cooperation | Overall | ||
| Structural | Company—Santiago | 0.631** | 0.162 | − 0.187 | 0.126 | 0.327 |
| Information | (0.274) | (0.266) | (0.236) | (0.285) | (0.361) | |
| Foundation—Santiago | 0.715** | 0.018 | − 0.322 | 0.511 | 0.333 | |
| (0.309) | (0.347) | (0.344) | (0.336) | (0.375) | ||
| Recipient—Santiago | − 0.468*** | − 0.033 | 0.321* | − 0.109 | − 0.271 | |
| (0.158) | (0.173) | (0.170) | (0.178) | (0.192) | ||
| Company—Province | − 0.483** | − 0.209 | 0.354* | 0.229 | 0.550* | |
| (0.235) | (0.219) | (0.191) | (0.254) | (0.310) | ||
| Foundation—Province | − 0.846*** | − 0.109 | 0.470* | − 0.019 | 0.098 | |
| (0.254) | (0.296) | (0.277) | (0.288) | (0.299) | ||
| Recipient—Province | Base | Base | Base | Base | Base | |
| Obs | 340 | 340 | 340 | 340 | 340 | |
| R2 | 0.060 | 0.011 | 0.035 | 0.058 | 0.094 | |
| Structural | Environment | − 0.033 | − 0.344** | 0.026 | − 0.272* | − 0.358** |
| Incentives | (0.152) | (0.141) | (0.123) | (0.147) | (0.165) | |
| R2 | 0.016 | 0.023 | 0.028 | 0.056 | 0.079 | |
| Art and culture | 0.314*** | 0.065 | 0.005 | 0.153 | 0.099 | |
| (0.113) | (0.124) | (0.121) | (0.117) | (0.145) | ||
| R2 | 0.035 | 0.009 | 0.028 | 0.051 | 0.070 | |
| Science and technology | 0.278 | − 0.458** | − 0.049 | − 0.065 | − 0.428* | |
| (0.191) | (0.217) | (0.139) | (0.209) | (0.254) | ||
| R2 | 0.021 | 0.021 | 0.028 | 0.047 | 0.076 | |
| Obs | 386 | 386 | 386 | 386 | 386 | |
| Organizational | Company with policy | 0.523*** | 0.358** | − 0.194 | 0.157 | 0.224 |
| Fundraising policy | (0.198) | (0.166) | (0.155) | (0.188) | (0.242) | |
| Recipient without policy | 0.361** | 0.342** | − 0.238 | − 0.157 | − 0.535** | |
| (0.178) | (0.163) | (0.172) | (0.185) | (0.222) | ||
| Recipient with policy | 0.438** | 0.187 | − 0.488*** | − 0.346* | − 0.739*** | |
| (0.183) | (0.176) | (0.178) | (0.191) | (0.215) | ||
| Company without policy | Base | Base | Base | Base | Base | |
| Obs | 314 | 314 | 314 | 314 | 314 | |
| R2 | 0.069 | 0.034 | 0.048 | 0.067 | 0.104 | |
| Organizational | Company size | 0.209 | 0.125 | − 0.022 | 0.395*** | 0.267* |
| Size and age | (0.136) | (0.116) | (0.097) | (0.112) | (0.151) | |
| Obs | 127 | 127 | 127 | 127 | 127 | |
| R2 | 0.121 | 0.057 | 0.051 | 0.173 | 0.079 | |
| Age (1 = more than 10 years) | 0.299** | − 0.112 | − 0.019 | 0.016 | 0.037 | |
| (0.142) | (0.149) | (0.153) | (0.147) | (0.161) | ||
| Obs | 233 | 233 | 233 | 233 | 233 | |
| R2 | 0.083 | 0.030 | 0.027 | 0.013 | 0.027 | |
| Organizational | With alliances | − 0.015 | 0.205* | 0.118 | 0.382*** | 0.213 |
| Collaboration | (0.121) | (0.114) | (0.110) | (0.109) | (0.143) | |
| Alliances (did not respond) | 0.711** | 0.203 | 0.898** | 0.996* | 1.043 | |
| (0.297) | (0.552) | (0.390) | (0.594) | (0.802) | ||
| Without alliances | Base | Base | Base | Base | Base | |
| Obs | 381 | 381 | 381 | 381 | 381 | |
| R2 | 0.045 | 0.024 | 0.049 | 0.095 | 0.090 | |
| Report | 0.376** | 0.208 | 0.136 | 0.283* | 0.286 | |
| (0.160) | (0.150) | (0.144) | (0.161) | (0.198) | ||
| Report (did not respond) | 0.568** | 0.635** | 0.052 | 0.480* | 0.976** | |
| (0.251) | (0.297) | (0.522) | (0.250) | (0.391) | ||
| Do not report | Base | Base | Base | Base | Base | |
| Obs | 314 | 314 | 314 | 314 | 314 | |
| R2 | 0.061 | 0.032 | 0.041 | 0.072 | 0.112 |
The five panels on the left represent each hypothesis category, while the corresponding R2 indicate variance explained for each model. One model was used for the first and third panels, while two models were used for the second, fourth, and fifth panels. Each column represents outcomes for the five dependent variables. Each model includes organization type and geography controls, except for the first panel for which the controls are the independent variables of interest. Significance: ***0.01, **0.05, *0.10