Diversity statements for leveraging organizational legitimacy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
European companies are increasingly putting “diversity statements” on corporate websites. Websites are important because they are used by members of the public, especially the younger generation, to seek information about companies. Legitimacy theory is often cited as one explanation for having good diversity policies, but we found no research in the diversity, HRM or social accounting literature with empirical evidence of different types of legitimacy associated with diversity. We examined on-line diversity statements from 174 top European companies for evidence of legitimacy-enhancing messages, and coded them by type of legitimacy. We show that diversity statements are presented in ways associated with two different types of legitimacy (pragmatic exchange and moral). International differences are also highlighted. These findings will help practitioners to design diversity statements based on a better understanding that legitimacy is a multi-faceted construct, and help them avoid the dangers of empty discourse, i.e. inconsistency between words and reality.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it