Contrasting realities: corporate environmental disclosure and stakeholder-released information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to study the informational dynamics that take place between a firm and its stakeholders with respect to corporate environmental management. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis is based on a case study contrasting environmental information reported by the case firm with environmental information about the firm disclosed by four stakeholder groups or their representatives (governments, the community, environmental non-governmental organizations and investors) over three years. The information flow of disclosure is also considered. Findings – The results suggest that the informational dynamics are composed of multiple related patterns. The patterns range from correspondence between disclosures to stakeholders complementing or contradicting corporate disclosures. Different patterns are associated with different levels of interactions from stakeholders, who are most involved when they combine disclosure patterns around key environmental issues for the forest industry. Limited interactions are observed from the firm, suggesting a symbolic engagement within the dynamics and a strategic accountability approach. Research limitations/implications – Limitations are found in the focus on disclosure outlets without examination of their production and reception, and in the inherent nature of the documents collected to represent each perspective. Some stakeholder groups were excluded from the study due to data unavailability. Originality/value – This paper offers an in-depth analysis of firm-stakeholders interactions with respect to environmental reporting and maps the information flow of their disclosure.
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 | 0.015 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".