Researching the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Economic Growth and Inequality: Methodological Aspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study focuses on analyzing the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on economic growth and reducing inequality, highlighting the importance of CSR in achieving sustainable development and social justice. The main aim is to analyze how different CSR initiatives contribute to economic development, social prosperity, and the reduction in inequality by reviewing the methods used to assess their impact. The research methodology includes a detailed literature review, bibliometric analysis and scientific mapping, surveys of various business organizations, and a gap analysis regarding the identification of gaps between the current state of CSR activities and the expected outcomes. The research shows that companies perceive CSR as a key tool for improving corporate image, responding to stakeholder expectations, and investing in social justice. Despite positive intentions, challenges include the lack of clearly defined methodologies for measuring the impact on economic inequality, as well as difficulties in assessing the long-term effects of CSR initiatives. Key conclusions highlight the need for more structured approaches to assessing the social and economic effects of CSR, recommending that companies improve their transparency and accountability and implement clear indicators of success to achieve sustainable economic and social outcomes.
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 | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".