Corporate Social Responsibility of the Financial Sector – Strengths, Weaknesses and the Impact on Sustainable Development
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
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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