Stakeholder engagement practices and impression management
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
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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