Perceived voluntary code legitimacy: Towards a theoretical framework and research agenda
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
Abstract Increasingly within industries voluntary codes (standards) are being developed and subsequently used by firms to address social and environmental issues. On any particular issue multiple competing codes may be available for adoption by firms. Given a choice of codes, which ones will firms adopt? Building on existing institutional and economic research pertaining to voluntary codes this paper proposes a theoretical model as to why some codes are perceived as legitimate by firms and hence are widely adopted while others are not. This model proposes that, in addition to the role of the code's content, the characteristics of the adopting firm, and environmental factors, the origins of a voluntary code, including the characteristics of the developer creating it, the development process, and the opportunity for firms to engage in formalized ‘normative conversations’ regarding the code subsequent to its adoption, will influence whether potential firm adopters perceive the code as legitimating and hence decide to adopt it. Rather than code adoption simply reflecting institutional mimicry or a rational transaction by adopting firms this model suggests that both the creation and the maintenance processes surrounding codes play important roles in the perceptions of legitimacy and subsequent adoption of codes by firms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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