Corporate Social Responsibility of the Financial Sector – Strengths, Weaknesses and the Impact on Sustainable Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study analyses the performance of the financial sector with respect to corporate social responsibility and sustainability. Because this sector has a strong influence economically and on sustainable development, both risk management issues and stakeholder pressure drive the financial sector into a more sustainable direction. In contrast to polluting sectors, the financial sector does not affect the environment and society by direct emissions or the use of resources like other industries. To compare the financial sector with other sectors regarding their sustainability performance, we analyzed the performance in the fields of sustainability reporting, business ethics and product responsibility, labor issues, environmental performance, community issues, and corporate governance. The study is based on more than 1800 firms including 400 organizations from the financial sector. We link CSR to sustainability and define it as corporate self‐regulation in order to manage sustainability risks and opportunities. The results suggest that financial sector performance is relatively low regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR) in general. Weaknesses of the financial sector with regard to CSR are reporting, business ethics and product responsibility, and labor issues. Strengths of the financial sector regarding CSR can be located with respect to community relations. Further research is needed with respect to the factors influencing CSR performance. It is still not clear what influences regulations, stakeholder pressure or potential financial benefits have on sustainability performance in the financial sector. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".