Shedding Light on the Dark Side of Firm Lobbying: A Customer Perspective
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
Firms spend a substantial amount on lobbying—devoting financial resources on teams of lobbyists to further their interests among regulatory stakeholders. Previous research acknowledges that lobbying positively influences firm value, but no studies have examined the parallel effects for customers. Building on the attention-based view (ABV) of the firm, the authors examine these customer effects. Findings reveal that lobbying negatively affects customer satisfaction such that the positive relationship between lobbying and firm value is mediated by losses to customer satisfaction. These findings suggest a dark side of lobbying and challenge current thinking. However, several customer-focused moderators attenuate the negative effect of lobbying on customer satisfaction, predicted by ABV theory, including the chief executive officer’s background (marketing vs. other functional area) and the firm’s strategic use of resources (advertising spending, research-and-development spending, or lobbying for product market issues). These moderators ensure consistency between lobbying and customer priorities or direct firm attention toward customers even while firms continue to lobby. Finally, the authors verify that lobbying reduces the firm’s customer focus by measuring this focus directly using text analysis of firm communications with shareholders. Collectively, the research provides managerial implications for navigating both lobbying activities and customer priorities, and public policy implications for lobbying disclosure requirements.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it