Corporate Social Responsibility: Impact on Firm Performance for an Emerging Economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) was usually referred to as a concept where companies initiate voluntary action towards social and environmental concerns in the context of business operations related to the stakeholders of the company prior to the CSR Act 2013 in India. Post-2013, the voluntary initiative was replaced by regulatory guidelines to address social and environmental concerns. The CSR applicability–investment gap was used as a base concept in this study with instrumental theory; the study offers a strategic perspective of CSR and how organizations emphasized maximizing stakeholders’ value. In order to further investigate the effect of CSR on corporate financial performance (CFP) through the measure of shareholders’ value, i.e., the return on equity (ROE), the study used the sample from the National Stock Exchange (NSE)-Nifty-100 indexed companies of Emerging Economy—India for a span of fourteen years (2009–2023). The vast majority of research in this domain is conducted in developed countries; the research gap is filled by this study by considering India and drawing samples from multiple industries. The empirical model was developed by using panel data regression, where the dependent variable was ROE, and the independent variables were earning per share (EPS), log total income (LTI), CSR applicability/profit after tax (CRSAPPPAT), and CSR investment/profit after tax (CSRIPAT). The findings also highlighted the CSR applicability and investment of the firms during pre- and post-Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) periods. The same was also analyzed for the firms committed to CSR and not committed to CSR. The results indicated that there is no significant impact of the CSR/ESG initiatives (applicability and investment) on the ROE of the firms. The performance could be better if the companies minimize the CSR/ESG promise–performance gap through effective communication with stakeholders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".