Corporate social responsibility and stock price informativeness: The public interest perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we propose a new theory that sheds a different light on the potential relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Stock Price Informativeness (PI). More specifically, we explain why a neutral association between CSR and PI can be an indicator of high economic and social welfare, while a positive association can be an indicator of both markets and governments failure. Under a neutral relationship, we argue that mandatory disclosure is getting firms to disclose near their optimal level. Therefore, any voluntary disclosure beyond the mandatory regime (such as CSR disclosure) should not improve PI. We base our hypothesis on public interest theory that suggests that regulators promote the public interest when a market failure is identified. On the other hand, under a positive association between CSR and PI, we argue that regulators do not offer adequate incentives for firms to disclose at their socially optimal levels because the level of voluntary disclosure by socially responsible firms is optimal in comparison to the level of mandatory disclosure provided by other firms with weak CSR engagement.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".