Bibliographic record
Abstract
The differential characteristic of corporate social strategy is the objective of pursuing both social value creation and economic value creation through social action projects. Moreover, we go so far as to argue that when social action projects achieve both ends, firms will be encouraged to make additional social investments and that economic value creation is positively correlated with sustainable social action. We also believe that corporate social strategy and corporate social responsibility are compatible. This belief is by no means shared by many business and society academics. The traditional definition of CSR precludes the pursuit of profit when firms engage in social action projects. This is an important point that should not be obscured by the research of a number of authors arguing that corporate social performance is positively related to business performance (Cochran and Wood, 1984; McGuire et al ., 1988; Hosmer, 1994b; Waddock and Graves, 1997; Margolis and Walsh, 2003). This positive relationship is understood as an unintended yet felicitous outcome. All of us with some experience in CSR have heard repeatedly from The Global Compact, Business for Social Responsibility, The Caux Roundtable, the US Chamber of Commerce, etc., that doing good is good business. Who, on the other hand, has sighted a CEO jumping up to declare that the reason to do good is because it is profitable?
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".