Corporate Social Responsibility Performance & ETF Historical Market Volatility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In investment and trading, different CSR moral ethical firms, categorized in a number of groups, may be suitable for different financial instruments (i.e. USA sector ETFs) and different market volatility situations. For the purpose of this article we first (i) analyze the trading return performance of four CSR categories (in particular: activism, community development, corporate governance, and environment); and then (ii) examine and comment the correlation between the market performance of a number of firms belonging in these four CSR categories and historical ETF market volatility. Finally, we (iii) suggest CSR firms as trading tools according to dominant market volatility. Other CSR categories (like: fair trade & supply chain, green building, philanthropy & corporate contributions, etc.) would be examined in future research by following the introduced by this paper approach. Paper concludes that, in relatively less volatile markets the Environment CSR ethical firms display better results. On the other hand, in strong market volatile situations it is better to trade Community Development CSR and Corporate Governance CSR ethical firms. Finally, the Activism CSR ethical firms are uncorrelated with the market volatility, as well as their performance is poor in all market cases.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".