MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090958923 · doi:10.1111/acfi.12706

The effects of reporting frameworks and a company’s financial position on managers’ willingness to invest in corporate social responsibility projects

2020· article· en· W3090958923 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate social responsibilityBusinessPosition (finance)DilemmaAccountingInvestment (military)Financial statementInvestment decisionsFinancePublic relationsBehavioral economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examines how companies’ voluntary adoption of a particular CSR framework affects their managers’ decision‐making, especially when they are faced with a dilemma whereby maximising environmental benefits means a reduction in financial returns. The results show that investment in CSR projects is significantly higher when companies report under a stand‐alone CSR reporting framework, as this framework provides the opportunity to highlight the benefits of CSR investment. In contrast, an integrated reporting framework encourages disclosure of benefits and costs, whereas the financial statement framework limits disclosure of CSR activities, and both result in lower investment in CSR projects.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.225 · 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