MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407153902 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18020082

The Impact of Public Environmental Concern on Corporate ESG Performance

2025· article· en· W4407153902 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tsun Se Cheong, Ning Ma, Tingting Han

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJilin Office of Philosophy and Social ScienceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBusinessEnvironmental impact assessmentEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementAccountingEnvironmental sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Utilizing an advanced machine learning algorithm, particularly the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) framework, this study reveals a significant nonlinear and even cyclical relationship between public concern about environmental issues and the ESG performance of Chinese A-share listed companies, covering the period from 2004 to 2020. The findings highlight the effectiveness of the Self-Organizing Map (SOM)-ANN framework in elucidating the empirical relationship between these variables. We contend that robust public monitoring can enhance companies’ ESG initiatives, and we recommend that policymakers implement a series of measures to safeguard and promote public involvement in decision-making processes. Furthermore, our analysis of the combined effects of public concern and various performance metrics on firms’ ESG outcomes indicates that the diversity among firms is crucial for determining the most appropriate level of public participation in their sustainable development efforts. Therefore, managers and policymakers should focus on firm-specific attributes instead of adopting a “one-size-fits-all” approach to maximize the benefits of public engagement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207