MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361802319 · doi:10.55365/1923.x2023.21.9

Effects of Environmental and Social Disclosures Practice on Firm Risks: Evidence From a Developing Nation

2023· article· en· W4361802319 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haslinda Yusoff, Nur Izni Abd Aziz, Rina Ismail

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economics and Finance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderBusinessGovernment (linguistics)SustainabilityCorporate social responsibilityAccountingSystematic riskStakeholder theoryStakeholder engagementSustainability reportingFinancePublic relationsEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to explore the effects of environmental and social disclosures (ESD) on firm risk in Malaysia.The study utilises stakeholder theory because it explains the responsibilities of the firms towards the wide range of stakeholders that will then contribute to the economic performance of the firms and it has been widely used by researchers in corporate social responsibility studies.The data were collected through content analysis.The extent of ESD was obtained from the annual reports and sustainability reports for the year 2017, while the firm risk was calculated based on the share prices obtained from Bursa Station.The finding indicates the level of ESD is still low among the top 100 listed companies in Malaysia and the result from the hypotheses testing found the relationships between ESD with specific firm risks (total risk, systematic risk, unsystematic risk) are insignificant.The discovery infers investors have minimal demands and reliance on ES information of the country's public listed companies in making financial-related decisions.Apart from investors, other company's stakeholder groups also may not value the importance of ES-related activities including ESD.Nevertheless, this study provides an insight for (i) the regulators namely the government and Bursa Malaysia that continuous initiatives should be performed on ESD guidance and (ii) the companies on the need for new strategies towards a successful implementation of ESD.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Economics and FinanceSame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207