MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010793462 · doi:10.1108/09513571011092547

Extending the application of stakeholder influence strategies to environmental disclosures

2010· article· en· W2010793462 on OpenAlexaff
Evangeline Elijido‐Ten, Louise Kloot, Peter Clarkson

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Auditing & Accountability Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderOriginalityScarcityStakeholder analysisBusinessStakeholder engagementSample (material)Value (mathematics)Intervention (counseling)Stakeholder managementStakeholder theoryPublic relationsMarketingQualitative researchKnowledge managementPsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to provide insights into stakeholder expectations regarding the types of disclosures a firm should make, and if dissatisfied with the disclosure policy, whether it will use different intervention strategies in an attempt to induce the desired disclosure outcome. Design/methodology/approach An inductive qualitative framework is used in the study. In‐depth interviews, triangulated against relevant web site and media releases, are used to identify the salient stakeholders and the major environmental issues in Malaysia. Then an experimental approach is used based on role‐playing whereby experienced participants are introduced to hypothetical vignettes that relate to environmental issues identified. Findings The results indicate that the preferred form of disclosure is for the firms to “defend” the reasons behind the environmental event and/or explain what has been done to rectify the situation. With relatively few exceptions, the preferred strategies chosen by various participants align well with the influence strategies identified by Frooman. The findings confirm that although Frooman's model is useful in predicting stakeholder influence strategies, its effectiveness is tempered by the level of significance placed on the event by the stakeholders. Research limitations/implications Although based on a small sample, the results suggest that stakeholder theory has much to offer in terms of understanding management/stakeholder behaviour and corporate environmental disclosures. Originality/value The paper extends the application of stakeholder influence strategies in the “environmental reporting” domain. Likewise, it attempts to address the scarcity of literature taking the view of a wide array of stakeholders and how they choose to influence the firm. Finally, it confirms that stakeholder theory can be extended to aid the understanding of events in non‐western developing economies such as Malaysia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations149
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting Auditing & Accountability JournalSame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207