Is all publicity good publicity? The impact of direct and indirect media pressure on the adoption of governance practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research Summary Media coverage is known to influence firms' behavior, but it is less known whether coverage of firms' partners also has an effect. In a context of governance practices' diffusion in Canada, we distinguish the effect of direct media coverage of the firm's activities, from indirect coverage, defined as media coverage of the firms' interlock partners. We examine whether the coverage is laden with positive or negative emotions. We find that both direct and indirect media coverage have a strong effect on firms' adoption of practices, either when the tone is positive or negative. The findings indicate that media coverage has broader and deeper effects on firms' actions than previously known. Managerial Summary Firms are under pressure from many outside stakeholders who want them to change. This pressure is felt strongly when it is expressed through mass media attention to the firms or their practices, and often persuades management to make changes. We examine the effect of media coverage on changes in governance practices, finding that media influences reach all the way to the board. In addition, we find that both critique and praise can lead a firm to make changes in its governance practices. The media attention does not even have to be directed to the firm itself: when media targets companies that share common directors with the focal firm, the firm's board usually responds by adopting governance practices as if media targeted the firm.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".