Examining the relationship between ESG scores and financial performance in banks: Evidence from G-8 countries
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
Purpose-It is aimed to examine the relationship between the ESG scores and financial performances of all banks operating in the stock markets of G-8 countries (Italy, France, Japan, Canada, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States). Methodology-Return on assets and return on equity were used as financial performance criteria, and the Environmental, Social and Governance scores of the banks were defined as separate independent variables as sub-breakdowns. In addition, debt/equity ratio is another independent variable included in the study. The data used for the study were obtained from the Thompson Reuters database, the data were used on an annual basis and the data were analyzed with the panel data analysis method. Findings-Results of the analysis, according to both return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) models, Environmental score has a negative and significant relationship, while Social score has a positive and significant relationship. Governance score has a negative and significant relationship on both sides. It was concluded that it was not statistically significant for both models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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