Gaining goodwill: developing stakeholder approaches to corporate governance
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
In this paper we describe evidence for the increasing salience of intangible assets to the economic performance of firms and we attach special significance to the importance of relationship-based goodwill (social capital) and the effect of corporate governance practices in building and maintaining the confidence of social networks and capital markets. We present evidence from a small study conducted in Canada that good corporate governance practices as currently assessed by expert analysts do not necessarily correlate with stock price performance in the short term. And we postulate that goodwill of stakeholders arises from two socially constructed resources: (i) enhanced social capital and (ii) enhanced reputation, defined here as the perception of legitimacy or prestige of managements and boards. Both are linked to a perception by stakeholders of value creation by the firm. We propose a model for explaining the links between goodwill and value creation and conclude that if we accept the socially constructed nature of key drivers of value, there are significant implications for corporate governance theory and practice. These implications lend further support to the potential value of stakeholder-inclusive approaches to corporate governance.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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