Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and Investment Decisions: Evidence from Saudi Indexed Companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the investment decisions of Saudi corporations in the corporate social responsibility (CSR) context and examined the moderated role of corporate governance quality. The panel dataset consisted of 82 firms and 328 Saudi firm-year observations listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange over the period of 2018–2021, and feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) regression was used for model estimation. The empirical findings indicated that companies with higher levels of CSR reporting invested more effectively than companies with lower CSR reporting levels. The empirical analysis suggested two main findings: (i) corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting has a significant effect on investment decisions and (ii) this relationship depends on corporate governance practices. This research presents new evidence that improves the discussion around CSR involvement and corporate investment decision making in the emerging market of Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, it presents practical and managerial implications for policymakers and standard setters who are interested in ameliorating sustainable development in Saudi Arabia under the Kingdom Vision of 2030. Additionally, this work provides suggestions for firm management regarding the importance of CSR commitment and corporate governance mechanisms in enhancing corporate investment decisions. Finally, the outcomes of this research are beneficial for investors, as they represent the factors to be considered before making investment decisions.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".