La gouvernance des sociétés d‘État au gouvernement fédéral: un bilan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: Les sociétiés d'État ont pu s'inspirer des efforts entrepris récemment par les entreprises du secteur privé dans le but de renforcer leur gouvernance. Toutefois, ces deux secteurs présentent des différences importantes, qui sont examinées dans le présent article. En comparaison des entreprises priviées, les sociétés d'État doivent appliquer un processus de reddition de comptes plus complexe comportant un nombre beaucoup plus important de centres de décisions et de consultation. Des praticiens et des groupes de réflexion ont produit récemment d'importants documents sur la gouvernance des entreprises publiques, qui proposent des idées et recommandations sur la façon de renforcer la régie des sociétés d'État. Cet article fait état de ces travaux. En 1996, le gouvernement du Canada a produit des Lignes directrices sur la régie des sociétés d'État et autres entreprises.Nous examinons en détail le contenu de ces orientations et la réponse des sociétés d'État à leur égard. Nous avons envoyéà tous les présidents et premiers dirigeants des sociétés d'État fédérales un questionnaire sur les récents changements apportés à leur mode de régie. Le sondage a révélé qu'un bon nombre de sociétés d'État ont apporte des changements importants qui sont exposés dans l'étude. Quelques‐uns de ces changements sont tout aussi ambiticux et profonds que les transformations apportées à la régie des sociétés privées. Enfin, l'auteur conclut son article en formulant diverses observations et suggestions sur la façon de renforcer la gouvernance des sociétés d'État. Abstract: Governance has recently become a priority in federal Crown corporations. Crown corporations have been able to borrow from recent private‐sector efforts to strengthen their governance practices. Still, there are important differences between the two sectors and this article reports on them. Crown corporations have to deal with a more complex accountability process and with many more decision‐making and consultation centres than do private firms. There have been a number of important documents on corporate governance in public enterprises produced recently by practitioners and think‐tanks that provide insights and recommendations on how to strengthen governance in Crown corporations. The Government of Canada issued in 1996 guidelines, “Corporate Governance in Crown Corporations and Other Public Enterprises.” This article reports in some detail on the contents of these guidelines and how Crown corporations have responded to them. A questionnaire was sent to all the chairs and president‐csos of federal Crown corporations asking them to report on recent changes in their governance approach. The survey revealed that there are a number of Crown corporations that have introduced important changes to their governance practices. This article reports on these changes. Some of the changes are as ambitious and as sweeping as any corporate governance changes introduced by private firms. The article concludes with a number of observations and suggestions on how to strengthen further corporate governance in federal Crown corporations.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".