Corporate Social Responsibility and Shareholder Wealth: The Role of Marketing Capability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.094 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it