AN EXPLORATORY VIEW OF EMERGING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORPORATE SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study uses primary research methods to determine whether a corporate social performance (CSP)–corporate financial performance (CFP) relationship exists within the Canadian context through examination of publicly-traded Canadian-based companies. The empirical findings demonstrate a positive CSR–CFP relationship, typically with CFP preceding CSP (although this does not preclude a relationship in the other direction) when using accounting-based measures of financial performance and as applied to the Top 1000 firms in Canada as ranked by profitability. This positive relationship was not confirmed when compared to the Top 500 companies ranked by profitability (i.e., with the "bottom 500" removed). In addition, the positive relationship did not occur with respect to market-based measures of financial performance (i.e., share performance). In addition, the study noted two possible issues that may have influenced the findings although the extent of such influences (if they exist) is not known. The first of these relates to a predilection amongst the CSR-rankings towards firms with high profitability. Almost all of the top-ranked CSR leaders are from the Top 500 firms in Canada as ranked by profitability and nearly three-quarters are from the Top 100. The second issue is the potential bias of the CSR-ranking methods themselves. This may have resulted in the inclusion of some firms with more questionable reputations in the rankings as well as the lack of continuity from year to year of CSR-leaders amongst the three rankings examined. This exploratory study sets the stage for more detailed analyses within a Canadian context in the future.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".