Corporate philanthropy has become a prominent feature of modern business practices, with major corporations investing billions of dollars annually in charitable initiatives and social programs. Concurrently, heightened public skepticism has raised concerns that corporate charity efforts may mask contradictions between stated social commitments and business behavior. This thesis examines whether practices of corporate philanthropy align with declared social values or act as performative contradictions to hide diverging corporate action. Elite firms frequently promote commitments to sustainability, equity, and community development through charitable giving and public marketing, while simultaneously engaging in lobbying, political contributions, and regulatory advocacy designed to advance business interests. These discrepancies raise an important question: does corporate philanthropy reflect consistency or divergence between declared social values and corporate strategic behavior?

This study conducts a comparative case analysis of five major United States corporations: Berkshire Hathaway, Amazon, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, and JPMorgan Chase. The foundation of this thesis draws on publicly available materials, including corporate mission statements, sustainability and philanthropy reports, financial disclosures, lobbying records, political contribution data, and regulatory filings. These sources are used to evaluate how firms articulate their social commitments and how they behave in relevant political and market arenas. Through systematic document analysis and process tracing, their philanthropy initiatives are assessed alongside relevant corporate actions to determine whether patterns of consistency or contradiction emerge. The central hypothesis is that corporate philanthropy is often utilized strategically, particularly in industries facing regulatory scrutiny or public criticism, helping firms maintain legitimacy while pursuing business strategies that counteract their charity values.