Does Entrepreneurship and Corporate Social Responsibility Act as Catalyst towards Firm Performance and Brand Value?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims at exploring the influence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on firm performance and brand value for the companies covered within the top list of 50 U.S. companies for Social Responsibility drawn up by the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship and Reputation Institute, over the period 2008-2011. Moreover, this paper attempts to relate CSR with entrepreneurship, respectively Corporate Social Entrepreneurship and Corporate Entrepreneurship. Firm performance was measured both through accounting-based (return on assets and return on equity) and market-based firm performance measures (earnings per share). Brand value was proxied through Brand Finance data. CSR was reflected through the index developed by Carroll School of Management’s Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College in conjunction with the Reputation Institute. By employing panel data regression models, there resulted a positive and statistically significant relationship between CSR and firm performance as proxied by return on assets. However, we notice the lack of any statistically significant relationships between CSR and return on equity, as well as CSR and earnings per share. Furthermore, there was found no association between CSR and brand value.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".