THERE IS NO GOOD REASON NOT TO BE GOOD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the relationship between sustained corporate social performance and corporate financial performance? This study uses five measures of risk to evaluate financial performance and compares them to KLD ratings of firm social performance. Results show that bondholders are helped by positive social performance and are harmed by negative social performance. Other financial stakeholders are unaffected. Does corporate social performance (CSP) enhance or hinder corporate financial performance (CFP)? If a strong positive relationship were found to exist, it would give managers a very practical reason to engage in socially responsible activities, such as improving diversity in the work force, reducing pollution, and designing safer products. And if no relationship were found to exist, then at the very least there would be no good financial reason for managers not to engage in such socially responsible activities, which might be enough of an inducement for many firm managers to promote social welfare. However, if a strong negative relationship were found to exist, firm managers might be able to argue that their fiduciary responsibilities to their financial stakeholders are such that it would actually be financially irresponsible for them to engage in socially responsible activities. In short, much is at stake in the
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".