A review of Canadian corporate sustainable development reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of the paper is to present the results of a content analysis of Canadian corporate sustainable development reports. Design/methodology/approach A comparison of existing content analyses of corporate sustainable development reports was conducted. Based on the comparison, eight key areas were identified for further research in the content analysis of Canadian corporate reports. A total of 89 reports were reviewed in the content analysis. Findings The content analysis highlighted several interesting trends in Canadian reporting. For example, the analysis highlighted that relatively few corporations explicitly identify the audience for the report, include an endorsement from the board chair, provide details on specific standards used for managing the supply chain, discuss linkages to public policy, or use third‐party assurance. The analysis also highlighted the wide variety in report structure. Research limitations/implications The content analysis did not address all issues related to corporate sustainable development reporting. Numerous areas for further research were identified, such as focusing on how companies decide on what to include in the reports, how the reports are used, the accommodations made for specific audiences, challenges in auditing the reports, and future directions of company reporting. Originality/value The content analysis focused on several areas that have been highlighted in previous studies as well as areas that have not previously been investigated. The analysis is based on a larger sample size than the most recent Canadian studies. The research will be of interest to both research and practitioners in corporate sustainable development reporting.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.049 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".