Institutional Work and Legitimation in the Construction of CSR Standards. The Case of ISO 26000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the initiation and construction of transnational CSR standards and looks at the case of ISO 26000. By focussing on the actors and by applying the concept of institutional work, the analysis distinguishes between six forms of institutional work which had been undertaken: the creation of the standard (discursive/substantial), the mobilization of support (internal/external), and the organization of an inclusive space for discussion (consultation/negotiation). On the one hand, the social position of the initiators and of the organization that produces the standard as well as the external conjuncture can either hamper or facilitate the construction of a standardization project. On the other hand, certain forms of institutional work can foster the legitimation of the project. Legitimacy, potentially bestowed by an interested audience, is a necessary condition for the recognition and adoption of the standard by corporations. The analysis reveals the legitimation mechanisms in the initial construction of a CSR standard and shows that the amount of the different forms of institutional work varies depending on the specific context of a standardization initiative.
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 | 0.042 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".