Organization‐stakeholder relationships: exploring trust and transparency
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 ofThe 7 Habits of Highly Effective Peopleon 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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".