Studying the Effect of Stakeholders on the Disclosure of Corporate Social Responsibility by Banks: Evidence from Egypt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stakeholders have become more attentive to community and social information worldwide. However, their influence on the CSR disclosure is highly contextual and contingent upon several institutional factors. Therefore, this study pursues to identify the stakeholders’ group which has the most powerful effect on the CSR disclosure. The researchers examined the CSR disclosure provided by 38 banks operating in Egypt for the year 2015. Two main indices have been developed; one measures the extent of the CSR disclosure and denoted as as the CSR quantitative index. The other measures the qualitative aspects and denoted as the CSR qualitative index. In addition, five sub-indices have been developed to measure the CSR disclosure as recommened by the GRI. The relationship between these two main indices and the sub-indices and the seven groups of stakeholders have been examined using the OLS regression models. The non-parametric tests are also used to enhance the robustness of our findings and to identify the differences between the stakeholders for each index. Concerning the stakeholder effect, the Egyptian Stock exchange, audit committee and big audit firms are found to have the most powerful impact in our case. On contrary, independent directors, bank’s clients and bank specialty show insignificant results. Generally, the quality and extent of CSR disclosure by the banking sector still undeveloped, particularly for the national banks. Accordingly, the Egyptian Stock Exchange and the Central bank of Egypt need to issue vigorous guidelines and regulations to raise harmonization in the CSR disclosure and to empower their supervisory role in this respect.
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 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 | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".