MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136633733 · doi:10.1111/basr.12224

Social and economic value creation by Bendigo Bank and Stockland Property Group: Application of Shared Value Business Model

2021· article· en· W3136633733 on OpenAlexaff
Asoke Mehera, Eduardo Ordonez‐Ponce

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness and Society Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicService and Product Innovation
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreating shared valueInterviewBusiness valueStakeholderValue (mathematics)BusinessValue propositionBusiness modelStakeholder engagementValue networkPublic relationsMarketingEquity (law)Stakeholder analysisThematic analysisKnowledge managementCorporate social responsibilityEconomicsSociologyQualitative researchPolitical scienceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This case study explores how two Australian businesses—Bendigo Bank and Stockland Property—have adopted thematic components of the shared value business model to create social and economic value for their stakeholders. Information about organizational business models was collected from their annual reports and by interviewing company representatives. The study finds that Bendigo and Stockland have emphasized a new thematic component of stakeholder engagement—namely, customers and regional communities—in addition to three thematic components of shared value business model—reconceiving products, redefining the value chain, and using clustered collaboration—to create value. Additionally, both companies have increased their return on equity considerably in the period 2014–2019 while enhancing social value based on strategic initiatives. The study concludes by recommending an extended version of the shared value business model to enhance social and economic value creation based on stakeholder engagement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBusiness and Society ReviewSame topicService and Product InnovationFrench-language works237,207