Stakeholder Actions and Their Impact on the Organizational Cultures of Two Tobacco Companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We link the behaviors of executives and lawyers in two tobacco companies, in defending their tobacco products to the actions of stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Government and Congress, medical researchers, consumers, public‐health organizations, tobacco‐control advocates, and insiders who have spoken out). Included in our analysis, which is based on publicly available documents spanning over a period of almost six decades, are critical incidents in which moral disengagement tactics were applied in the decision‐making process. We infer that the disengagement tactics applied by tobacco decision makers are indicative of what Schein and other organizational scientists describe as organizational culture. We equate the critical incidents to the espoused beliefs and values and underlying assumptions which comprise organizational culture and explain that the cultures of these two tobacco companies are not consistent with the stakeholder theory of management. We conclude that the critical incidents we analyze were immoral and the representatives were indeed accountable for these behaviors. From an organizational change perspective, we discuss how analyzing these critical incidents can serve to assess the extent to which an organizational culture is ethical. Furthermore, these critical incidents can be fed back to organizational decision makers and can then be used to initiate organizational changes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".