Environmental Reporting in Securities Regulation: Trends, Explanations and Potentialities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper identifies four characteristics of contemporary environmental reporting in securities regulation in Canada — proaction, quasi-mandatorization, segregation and unofficialization, and makes inquiry into the factors that are responsible for shaping these attributes. It reviews three existing explaining scenarios — market incentives, stricter disclosure requirements, and the revival of civil society and indicates their drawbacks respectively. By uncovering an underlying causal relationship between the first three characteristics and the fourth one, this article argues that the landscape of contemporary environmental reporting is carved primarily by the interplay between official and unofficial sectors of governance. The interplay produces provisional compromise of regulatory powers and exhibits resemblance to a seesaw game, representing an ongoing process of bargaining, compromising and competing between official and unofficial sectors of governance. In the face of lack of robust regulatory methods of environmental reporting on the part of the official side, the author suggests that before taking the next step of regulatory innovation more attention should be paid to the functioning of the unofficial sector and how it has managed to obtain temporary preponderance in the governance of environmental 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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".