Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, organizations are subjected to an increasing number of CSR ratings and rankings. As stakeholder expectations evolve over time, CSR rating agencies frequently update their evaluation methodologies to reflect changes in the CSR landscape. This makes it increasingly challenging for firms to maintain a consistent rating or secure a stable position in CSR rankings. Despite the prevalence of CSR rankings, no prior research has examined firms’ status consistency over time and across multiple rankings. To fill this gap, we analyzed several prominent CSR rankings and examined three key research questions: 1) How consistently is a firm featured in a specific CSR ranking over time? 2) How consistently is a firm featured across multiple CSR rankings? 3) Are the longstanding leaders in a specific CSR ranking also recognized as cross-ranking champions? Our empirical findings reveal that it is relatively uncommon for firms to maintain a consistent presence in CSR rankings over time and across multiple rankings. We discussed the primary reasons for this and suggest that achieving such consistency requires sustained, multifaceted efforts.
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 | 0.038 | 0.166 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".