MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294958216 · doi:10.3390/su141811217

Does Firm Political Risk Affect the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Value?

2022· article· en· W4294958216 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Marhfor, Kais Bouslah, Abdelmajid Hmaittane

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate social responsibilityEnterprise valueAffect (linguistics)Value (mathematics)Sample (material)PortfolioMarket value addedBusinessSystematic riskPoliticsMarket valueMonetary economicsEconomicsAccountingFinancePublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates whether firm-level (idiosyncratic) political risk (PR) affects the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and firm value using a sample of 16,518 firm-year observations which correspond to 2055 unique firms belonging to the Russell 3000 Index over the sample period 2010–2020. Our main findings are as follows: First, firm-level PR does not affect firm value. Second, CSR is positively related to firm value, which is mainly driven by the social component of CSR. Finally, PR has no effect on the CSR–firm value relationship, regardless of the PR type. Our evidence suggests that firm-level PR is not priced in the financial market and as such it does not affect the CSR–firm value relationship. This is consistent with portfolio theory which suggests that only systematic risk is priced.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207