1{2 "validation_errors": [],3 "doc_id": "jof_12487",4 "ontology_version": "1.0",5 "prompt_version": "1.0",6 "model": "claude-opus-5-5",7 "effort": "medium",8 "annotated_at": "2026-11-03T22:56:55+00:00",9 "source_sha256": "e327f42795508f12d6b95430d6b8b5b4ca898bc0415cc5d8e6367b94fadd7467",10 "parser": "pymupdf-jof-heuristics-1.3",11 "payload_chars": 25069,12 "usage": {13 "input": 8623,14 "output": 2443,15 "cache_read": 3968,16 "cache_write": 017 },18 "cost_usd": 0.084146,19 "request_id": "req_011CggpYpd1yJoXawyuvzD99",20 "annotation": {21 "genre": "empirical",22 "subfield": "corporate_finance",23 "subfield_secondary": "international_finance (law and finance, CSR/ESG)",24 "primary_method": "reduced_form_regression",25 "identification": {26 "estimand": "Association between a country's legal origin (common vs. civil, by family) and firm-level CSR ratings, plus the differential responsiveness of CSR to demand shocks by legal origin.",27 "strategy": "Cross-country panel regressions (pooled OLS, random-effects GLS, random-effects ordered probit) of CSR ratings on legal origin dummies with year and industry fixed effects and country- and firm-level controls. Quasi-natural experiments (Chinese milk scandal, Indian Ocean earthquake, Deepwater Horizon) estimated as difference-in-differences with country fixed effects, plus placebo tests and mechanism tests.",28 "key_assumptions": [29 "Legal origin is predetermined and does not merely proxy for omitted country characteristics once controls are included",30 "Scandals and disasters shift CSR demand exogenously and comparably across legal origins",31 "Placebo industries are unaffected by the shocks"32 ],33 "threats_addressed": [34 "alternative explanations: doing good by doing well, ownership, political institutions, globalization, culture",35 "country-level omitted channels, handled with country fixed effects in the shock experiments",36 "changes in market shares or consumer demand driving the responsiveness results",37 "choice of CSR measure or data provider"38 ],39 "causal_language_strength": 2,40 "uses_causal_claim": false41 },42 "abstract_moves": {43 "question": {44 "present": false,45 "sentence_index": -146 },47 "gap": {48 "present": false,49 "sentence_index": -150 },51 "method": {52 "present": true,53 "sentence_index": 054 },55 "results": {56 "present": true,57 "sentence_index": 158 },59 "magnitude": {60 "present": false,61 "sentence_index": -162 },63 "contribution": {64 "present": false,65 "sentence_index": -166 }67 },68 "introduction": {69 "moves": [70 {71 "paragraph_index": 0,72 "move": "motivation"73 },74 {75 "paragraph_index": 0,76 "move": "tension_or_puzzle"77 },78 {79 "paragraph_index": 1,80 "move": "related_literature_positioning"81 },82 {83 "paragraph_index": 1,84 "move": "literature_gap"85 },86 {87 "paragraph_index": 2,88 "move": "preview_of_approach"89 },90 {91 "paragraph_index": 2,92 "move": "mechanism_or_theory_sketch"93 },94 {95 "paragraph_index": 3,96 "move": "preview_of_approach"97 },98 {99 "paragraph_index": 4,100 "move": "preview_of_results"101 },102 {103 "paragraph_index": 4,104 "move": "robustness_mention"105 },106 {107 "paragraph_index": 5,108 "move": "roadmap"109 }110 ],111 "contribution_paragraph_index": -1,112 "contribution_types": [113 "new_evidence"114 ],115 "roadmap_present": true,116 "literature_positioning_location": "inside_introduction"117 },118 "section_roles": [119 {120 "idx": 0,121 "role": "introduction"122 },123 {124 "idx": 1,125 "role": "theory"126 },127 {128 "idx": 2,129 "role": "data"130 },131 {132 "idx": 3,133 "role": "results"134 },135 {136 "idx": 4,137 "role": "results"138 },139 {140 "idx": 5,141 "role": "results"142 },143 {144 "idx": 6,145 "role": "conclusion"146 },147 {148 "idx": 7,149 "role": "appendix"150 },151 {152 "idx": 8,153 "role": "appendix"154 },155 {156 "idx": 9,157 "role": "appendix"158 },159 {160 "idx": 10,161 "role": "appendix"162 }163 ],164 "results_presentation": {165 "economic_significance_discussed": false,166 "statistical_significance_language": "stars_and_tstats",167 "magnitude_statements_in_intro": false168 },169 "robustness": {170 "location": "within_results",171 "types": [172 "alternative_specification",173 "alternative_measure",174 "placebo",175 "other"176 ]177 },178 "tables": {179 "convention_notes": "Tables open with descriptive and nonparametric comparisons by legal origin, followed by the main regression table across multiple estimators. Later robustness tables are framed as repeating one benchmark model with alternative controls, dependent variables or samples. Notes state the estimation method and fixed effects and use a 10/5/1% star convention. Descriptive tables report standard deviations in brackets.",180 "units_stated_in_notes": true,181 "standard_errors_description": "unclear"182 },183 "figures": {184 "uncertainty_shown": "no"185 },186 "conclusion": {187 "bounded_claims": true,188 "policy_implications": false,189 "open_questions": false,190 "restates_contribution": true191 },192 "hedging": {193 "level": "moderate",194 "typical_devices": [195 "'appears to be' and 'suggests' attached to findings",196 "framing results as correlations or associations",197 "explicit caveat that higher CSR does not imply higher total social responsibility",198 "'may reflect' alternative interpretations such as constraints rather than managerial objectives"199 ]200 },201 "claim_evidence": [202 {203 "claim": "Firms from common law countries have lower CSR ratings than civil law firms, and Scandinavian-origin firms score highest.",204 "evidence_type": "table",205 "evidence_ref": "Tables II-IV"206 },207 {208 "claim": "Legal origin outperforms ownership, political institutions, culture and firm financials as an explanation of CSR.",209 "evidence_type": "table",210 "evidence_ref": "Tables IV-V"211 },212 {213 "claim": "The legal origin result holds across CSR subindices and alternative ESG data providers.",214 "evidence_type": "table",215 "evidence_ref": "Tables VI-VII"216 },217 {218 "claim": "Civil law firms respond more strongly in CSR to scandals and disasters.",219 "evidence_type": "table",220 "evidence_ref": "Tables VIII-IX"221 },222 {223 "claim": "The greater responsiveness of civil law firms is not explained by changes in market shares.",224 "evidence_type": "table",225 "evidence_ref": "Table X"226 },227 {228 "claim": "Civil law firms face lower shareholder litigation risk and more regulation, which serve as channels.",229 "evidence_type": "table",230 "evidence_ref": "Table XI"231 },232 {233 "claim": "Countries with higher sustainability ratings tend to be civil law countries.",234 "evidence_type": "figure",235 "evidence_ref": "Figure 1"236 }237 ],238 "structural_summary": "The paper opens with the tension between shareholder primacy and widespread CSR activity, then argues that the doing good/doing well literature cannot explain cross-country variation. It proposes legal origin as the explanation and grounds this in law-and-finance theory in a dedicated section. Global CSR data feed descriptive and nonparametric comparisons, followed by panel regressions using several estimators. Robustness is organized as tests of alternative theories, alternative dependent variables and alternative samples. The paper then adds difference-in-differences shock experiments with placebo tests and a market-share check, and closes with tests of mechanisms. The conclusion restates macro- and micro-level contributions and caveats against welfare interpretations.",239 "writing_profile_keywords": [240 "law and finance",241 "cross-country panel",242 "horse race against alternative explanations",243 "quasi-natural experiments",244 "mechanism tests",245 "multiple data sources",246 "associational framing"247 ],248 "confidence": 0.8,249 "notes": "The section titled Economic Mechanisms was labeled robustness by the rule; I assigned it the results role because it directly tests channels. The excerpts do not state how standard errors are computed or clustered, so that field is unclear. Causal wording is mostly associational ('strongly correlated', 'predictor'), although the shock experiments are framed as quasi-natural experiments; I therefore rated causal language strength at 2."250 },251 "deterministic_checks": {252 "roadmap_regex": true,253 "contribution_regex_in_intro": false,254 "magnitude_in_abstract": false,255 "abstract_n_sentences": 3,256 "intro_n_paragraphs": 6,257 "intro_n_words": 1027,258 "causal_words_in_abstract": 0,259 "hedge_words_in_abstract": 0,260 "stars_mentioned": true,261 "clustered_se_mentioned": false,262 "internet_appendix_mentioned": false,263 "section_roles_rule": {264 "0": "introduction",265 "1": "other",266 "2": "data",267 "3": "results",268 "4": "results",269 "5": "robustness",270 "6": "conclusion",271 "7": "appendix",272 "8": "appendix",273 "9": "appendix",274 "10": "appendix"275 }276 },277 "schema_valid": true,278 "code_version": "feb6c9e-dirty"279}