Stakeholder engagement practices and impression management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess the substantiveness of stakeholder engagement by examining voluntary disclosures tied to the engagement process. The objective is to draw a portrait of stakeholder engagement practices and determine whether they genuinely contribute to informing stakeholders or whether they are simply intended to manage stakeholders’ impressions. Design/methodology/approach The authors performed an exploratory content analysis on 113 sustainability reports published in 2018 in the Global Reporting Initiative database. The authors investigated disclosures tied to consulted stakeholders, communication modes and material issues resulting from the engagement process. The authors then assessed the substantiveness of these disclosures to determine the extent of the impression management tactics deployed in the stakeholder engagement disclosures made by Canadian companies. Findings Data analysis showed that more than a third of Canadian firms tend to make generic disclosures on their stakeholders’ engagement. As well, almost half the engagement modes disclosed are unidirectional and fewer than 33% of Canadian companies disclose on relevant sustainability issues. Furthermore, only 26% of the sample seek assurance on the information disclosed. Overall, the authors note an important trend in impression management used in sustainability reporting and underscore a potentially significant sectoral effect in the tactics used. Originality/value These data provide new insight into stakeholder engagement processes and highlight the strategies used by Canadian companies to manage their stakeholders’ impressions rather than their expectations. The study also contributes to a better understanding of the underexplored stakeholder engagement process and provides regulatory organisations with deepened insights to better frame stakeholder engagement disclosures.
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 | 0.018 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".