Sustainable development and social responsibility (SDSR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate large Canadian companies’ communication behaviour about SDSR on their websites, the authors’ goal being to analyse the evolution of what they communicate about those issues on their websites, over a period of eight years. Design/methodology/approach – A longitudinal content analysis of the top 100 Canadian firms’ web-based communication practices was performed over a period of eight years, between 2006 and 2013. A conceptual method was applied to establish the presence/absence of SDSR concepts and related questions in the communication data available on corporations’ websites. Findings – Data analysis showed that over this period, an increasing number of firms had: a dedicated section on their website about SDSR, a more accurate definition of SDSR, an enhanced accessibility and an eagerness to improve their information by adding complimentary SDSR documents. Research limitations/implications – The results in this study are representative of very large and probably resource-rich Canadian firms and may not apply to all types and sizes of companies. Practical implications – The increasingly positive behaviour of large firms about SDSR communication on their websites demonstrates a continuous interest to enhance their communication positioning about these new values, moreover, shaping a new paradigm with the creation of a new pattern of communication on the web. Originality/value – The study is one of the very few longitudinal studies of SDSR communication practices by large firms in one Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country. Given the scope of activities of these companies at the global scale, this study also contributes to provide a first sketch of the communication profile of multinational corporations about their SDSR web practices.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".