Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder Wealth: The Role of Marketing Capability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the positive societal implications of corporate social responsibility (CSR), there remains an extensive debate regarding its consequences for firm shareholders. This study posits that marketing capability plays a complementary role in the CSR–shareholder wealth relationship. It further argues that the influence of marketing capability will be higher for CSR types with verifiable benefits to firm stakeholders (i.e., consumers, employees, channel partners, and regulators). An analysis utilizing secondary information for a large sample of 1,725 firms for the years 2000–2009 indicates that the effects of overall CSR efforts on stock returns and idiosyncratic risk are not significant on their own but only become so in the presence of marketing capability. Furthermore, the results reveal that although marketing capability has positive interaction effects with verifiable CSR efforts—environment (e.g., using clean energy), products (e.g., providing to economically disadvantaged), diversity (e.g., pursuing diversity in top management), corporate governance (e.g., limiting board compensation), and employees (e.g., supporting unions)—on stock returns (and negative interaction effects with these CSR efforts on idiosyncratic risk), it has no significant interaction effect with community-based efforts (e.g., charitable giving).
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".