Research on approaches to improve Corporate Performance through CSR: From the perspective of Stakeholder Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the outbreak of COVID-19, pharmaceutical enterprises have become increasingly important and have played a crucial role in ensuring people's life, health, and safety. Meanwhile, people continuously pay attention to the social responsibility performed by pharmaceutical enterprises. On the one hand, corporate social responsibility can maintain the brand image and improve its popularity. On the other hand, it can form a supervision role for the enterprise itself. Based on the role of stakeholders, does corporate social responsibility have a positive impact on corporate performance? This issue becomes the focus of this paper. Using the case of Pfizer, this paper analyzes corporate social responsibility (CSR) at the level of shareholders, employees, consumers, government, and social groups. Also, this paper compares CSR with corporate performance from the second quarter of 2021 to the second quarter of 2022. This paper found that corporate performance indicators would move in a negative direction when Pfizer did not actively fulfill its social responsibilities, especially at the level of shareholders, consumers, and the government. Therefore, through the case study of Pfizer, it can be concluded that corporate social responsibility has an impact on corporate performance. If an enterprise actively performs its social responsibility, corporate performance would also be improved accordingly, and vice versa.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".