How and Why does a Business-to-Business Firm's Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure Impact its Dependence on its Major Customers and Major Suppliers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior research has documented that a firm's disclosure of corporate social responsibility (CSR) makes it a more attractive business partner, boosting its sales. The authors extend this finding to business-to-business (B2B) firms. Using a regulatory change in China as a quasi-natural experiment, they demonstrate that a firm's disclosure of its CSR lowers by 2.1% the firm's dependence (for sales revenue) on its major customers but raises by 3.7% its dependence (for purchases) on its major suppliers. They further show that the firm's production efficiency (marketing efficiency) is a mechanism underlying the effect of CSR disclosure on dependence on major customers (suppliers). Next, they demonstrate that the CSR report's emphasis on the firm's supply chain partners weakens (strengthens) the effect on dependence on major customers (suppliers). The findings contribute to the multidisciplinary evidence on the B2B value of CSR disclosure, and the operations and marketing literature streams on determinants of supply-chain dependence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".