Les pratiques du reporting développement durable du secteur bancaire français : la reconquête d’une légitimité ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La plus récente crise financière a mis en exergue les enjeux spécifiques au secteur bancaire et a porté atteinte à la légitimité de ses pratiques commerciales. Cette étude s’appuie sur la théorie de la légitimité pour analyser l’évolution des pratiques de reporting développement durable (DD) dans le secteur bancaire en France. Notre analyse porte sur le contenu des trois principaux supports de reporting DD des dix plus grands groupes bancaires français durant la période 2006-2010, soit le rapport de développement durable (DD), le document de référence (DR) et le rapport annuel (RA). Nos résultats montrent que le contenu du reporting varie considérablement selon le support utilisé, et l’audience visée. D’autre part, la proportion des banques qui ont publié un rapport DD distinct a nettement augmenté durant la période de l’étude. Conformément au cadre théorique de la légitimité, nos analyses montrent qu’en contexte de crise, les banques françaises divulguent plus d’informations sur les enjeux spécifiques du secteur financier.
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 | 0.031 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".