MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889632522 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v11n10p42

Corporate Social Responsibility and Banks’ Financial Performance

2018· article· en· W2889632522 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francesco Gangi, Mario Mustilli, Nicola Varrone, Lucia Michela Daniele

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate social responsibilityProfitability indexBusinessAgency (philosophy)AccountingStakeholderFinanceFinancial crisisStakeholder engagementFinancial systemEconomicsPublic relationsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzes whether and how corporate social responsibility (CSR) affects the financial performance of the European banking industry. According to agency theory, CSR engagement should be negatively related to financial performance. By contrast, from the stakeholder perspective and according to the resource-based view, CSR should positively impact banks’ financial performance. Over a period of six years (2009-2015) following the explosion of the sub-prime crisis, the econometric estimates of the current study confirm a positive effect of CSR engagement on banks’ financial performance. Net interest income and profitability increase with the increase in social performance. At the same time, CSR is negatively related to non-performing loans. Therefore, in contrast to the trade-off model, our results support a win-win vision of the relationship between the social and financial performance of banks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207