Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine how increases in corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate social irresponsibility (CSiR) relate to firm performance. Further, this paper investigates how increases in CSR (CSiR) while CSiR (CSR) is present relate to three measures of firm performance: profitability, management efficiency and market valuation. Design/methodology/approach Using over 10,000 observations from 2009-2013 and combined data from Sustainalytics and Compustat, this paper examines how increases in either CSR or CSiR relate to firm performance. Findings The paper finds that increased CSR significantly relates to increased firm performance in all three measures, and that increased CSiR significantly relates to decreased profitability only. Furthermore, increased CSR when CSiR is present relates to increased efficiency and market valuation. Finally, increased CSiR when CSR is present relates to increased profitability and efficiency. The results suggest that CSR dominates the relationship to firm performance, as it was positively related to all three measures of firm performance, and when CSR and CSiR exist simultaneously, CSR has a dominant positive effect. Research limitations/implications The study sample consists of US firms only from 2009-2013, thus the generalizability of the results to other countries and periods is unknown. Practical implications The results demonstrating differing effects based on the measure of firm performance suggest that managers should be specific with which measures are used to gauge the impact of CSR and CSiR. In addition, managers would be wise to invest in CSR, as the results suggest that they can improve profitability, efficiency and market value. Even further, the empirically identified angel-halo effect suggests that investments in CSR may counter any potential negative effects from CSiR. Finally, the latter results suggest that firms can “get away” with some degree of CSiR when CSR is present. Originality/value By examining changing levels of CSR and CSiR independently and conjunctly across various measures of firm performance, this paper found a dominating role for CSR, which is labeled as the angel-halo effect.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.005 |
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".