Organization‐stakeholder relationships: exploring trust and transparency
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
Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore the organization‐stakeholder relationship between oil and gas operators and community members involved in the Sundre Petroleum Operators Group (SPOG) in Alberta, Canada. After a crisis of trust, the SPOG was established to increase transparency, and attempt to rebuild trust and healthy community stakeholder relationships. Design/methodology/approach This research paper is a result of interviews with both SPOG industry and community members ( n =18). A qualitative phenomenological orientation was adopted because of its focus on the individual experience of the relationship. Key relational elements such as trust and transparency were examined in relation to the importance for relationship building. The research is limited by the number of interviews that were obtained during the time allotted for data collection. Findings The results indicated that after a crisis, transparency is crucial for rebuilding trust and maintaining healthy community stakeholder relationships. An interesting finding in the research was the apparent influence of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People on the development and maintenance of shared values within the relationship. Further research is recommended into the impact of Covey's leadership and management style and on organization‐stakeholder relationships. Originality/value Shell provides an excellent example of an organization that experienced a loss of trust with key stakeholders and used transparency to begin to rebuild important stakeholder relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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