Sustainability Reporting Driving Forces and Management Control Systems
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 This study investigates how seemingly similar external pressures elicited diverse sustainability reporting control systems and processes in a sample of Canadian companies in the oil and gas industry. Using interviews with companies and their stakeholders, we found that the type of sustainability reporting control systems depended on the managerial motivations and attitudes within companies as they responded to external pressures. More specifically, our results provide insight into how formal and informal sustainability reporting control systems were developed according to various managerial motivations and different types of stakeholder relationships. The type and balance between formal and informal control systems, in turn, influenced the sustainability reporting characteristics that the company was able to develop. We contribute to the literature by differentiating companies based on their institutional logics to deal with external pressures, managerial motivations, and stakeholder relationships, that in turn influenced their control system characteristics including reporting structures, information systems, and assurances.
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 | 0.037 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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