MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030210888 · doi:10.1177/0007650310394640

Domesticating Radical Rant and Rage: An Exploration of the Consequences of Environmental Shareholder Resolutions on Corporate Environmental Performance

2011· article· en· W2030210888 on OpenAlexaff
Min‐Dong Paul Lee, Michael Lounsbury

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness & Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsNational Institute for NanotechnologyUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShareholderBusinessExtant taxonCorporate social responsibilityReputationSocial movementAccountingPublic relationsCorporate governanceFinancePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the effect of social shareholder activism on one of the most visible aspects of corporate social behavior, namely corporate pollution management practice. Social shareholder activism is a distinct form of social movement that engages firms “in the suites.” We theorize the effect of social shareholder activism using three social movement mechanisms: (a) disruption of routines, (b) reframing of issues using extant institutional logics, and (c) mobilization of relevant third-party constituents. Our empirical analysis using 13-year panel data of 58 public corporations strongly confirm the positive effect of environmental shareholder resolutions on the targeted firm’s pollution management practice. We have also found that certain firms targeted by social shareholder activism are more likely to respond positively to the demands than others. In particular, firms that can potentially incur higher disruption costs and are more dependent on reputation for critical resources such as larger firms as well as firms in industries that are closer to end-user consumers are more likely to concede to the demands from shareholder activists.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations114
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness & SocietySame topicEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessFrench-language works237,207