Entre discours, actions et éthique : pour une proposition de méthode d’analyse de la légitimité des stratégies de communication de RSE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’émergence des discours et des pratiques de responsabilité sociale des entreprises (RSE) a récemment généré un nouvel espace stratégique pour les organisations. Ce dernier engendre plusieurs questionnements d’ordre critique portant, notamment, sur les dimensions rhétoriques, éthiques et tactiques des stratégies RSE. Ces pratiques discursives font-elles partie d’une vision stratégique légitime de l’organisation ou d’une manœuvre trompeuse ? Le but du présent article est de proposer aux chercheurs et parties tierces un outil méthodologique qui permet de distinguer une stratégie légitime de RSE d’un stratagème. À travers une matrice, nous posons une série de questions qui définissent les indicateurs de la performance et de la maturité d’une stratégie de RSE. Ces indicateurs permettent à l’utilisateur de la matrice de jauger la stratégie RSE graduellement des discours organisationnels jusqu’aux actions et leur incidence sur l’environnement et la société.
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 | 0.050 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".