Audited Financial Reporting and Voluntary Disclosure of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reports
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Prior studies show that corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting is informative to investors but lacks credibility. This study examines whether a commitment to audits of financial outcomes, proxied by audit fees, is associated with greater CSR reporting credibility. We find that audit fees are positively associated with the likelihood of standalone CSR report issuance, and this positive association becomes stronger when managers perceive a greater need for credibility, i.e., when CSR reports are longer or issued with external assurance, when firms have strong CSR concerns, and when reports are issued sporadically. Corroborating our results, we find that CSR reports issued by firms committing to high audit fees accelerate the incorporation of future earnings information into current stock price. Taken together, our findings suggest that a commitment to higher financial reporting quality has the potential to bring positive externality to firms' nonfinancial disclosures and ultimately affects the issuance of CSR reports.
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 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 | 0.023 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it