CSR-based Differentiation Strategy of Export Firms From Developing Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the influences of the strategy tripod, an established concept in the international business (IB) literature, on a corporate social responsibility (CSR)-based differentiation strategy for export firms. This strategy is conceived as consisting of product-level and firm-level CSR. Using a sample of 195 Brazilian export firms, the authors find that innovation capabilities, international market exposure, and institutional pressures significantly influence product-level CSR; however, the latter two factors influence firm-level CSR only through their mediating effects on product-level CSR. This study contributes to the existing CSR and IB literature in three ways. First, it integrates and systematizes the factors influencing CSR-based strategies into the three categories represented by the legs of the strategy tripod to help elucidate the previous research on the factors that drive CSR. Second, it suggests that exporters’ CSR strategies can be affected by social and environmental institutions based outside their home countries. Third, this study contributes to filling an important empirical gap in the research on CSR by focusing on export ventures from emerging countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".