Does Ethics Reward on Public Markets: Empirical Evidences Ten Years After the Great Recession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the aftermath of the last Great Recession in 2007, firms’ commitment to social responsibility and sustainability started to be considered a corporate leverage to make extra-returns as well as to improve corporate reputation on institutional markets. This in turn has implied a lower uncertainty among investors and a higher trust from stakeholders’ categories, rising virtuous firms’ returns to over-perform their less responsible peers. Hence, this paper investigates the positive externalities of CSR on Italian stock exchange market, focusing on Blue Chips’ financial performance over the ten years post-crisis. In particular, we examined whether a listed company has been rewarded by its stakeholders over a high volatility periods, leveraging on CSR and Sustainability issues. Empirical findings highlight, ceteris paribus, two implications in regards to the impact of sustainability rating on corporate financial health. Indeed, the effect of CSR and corporate sustainability improves significantly companies’ earning performance (Return on Asset), although firms do not benefit from economic outperformances (Earning per Share) on stock exchange market.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".