MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237053300 · doi:10.2118/2001-070-ea

The Evolution of Environmental Reporting in the Petroleum Industry in Canada

2001· article· en· W4237053300 on OpenAlexaffabout
I.M. Herremans, S. Hershcovis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleumPetroleum industryEnvironmental reportingBusinessEnvironmental scienceGeologyAccountingEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The concern about environmental impacts has increased over the past several years. Pressures from various stakeholder groups have pushed petroleum companies to higher standards. While many companies have improved their environmental performance, few have yet to provide adequate communications as to their environmental impacts. With more institutions, recognizing the impact that environmental performance has on economic performance, it is essential that the industry communicate what it is doing environmentally. Such communication will ensure that informed decisions are made by both the industry and its stakeholders. SOCIETAL CONTRACTS AND LEGITIMIZATION Contemporary thinking regards business as a subset of society. Society grants corporations the freedom to manage a significant portion of its scarce resources and gives corporations certain rights through the granting of an implicit charter. With corporate rights come corporate responsibilities, one of which is to produce not only adequate economic output but also environmentally and socially acceptable output. Society needs evidence to form a basis for a decision for renewal of the corporate charter. If the corporation does not provide that evidence, society must use other, perhaps incomplete, sources. If corporate disclosure is constant and credible, it not only lends support for renewal of the corporate charter and survival of the corporation but it can also ward off government legislation or other negative activities that may act as road blocks in the enterprise's attempt to accomplish its objectives. To legitimize itself the corporation must understand society's expectations and communicate, as well as partake in, behavior that is consistent with society's definition of legitimate enterprise of the 2000s. Based on the work of Blau and Scott1, Eells2, and Zenisek3, Figure 1 depicts a model of a sustainable corporation, one that fits with the ever-evolving demands and expectations of society. The model suggests that three dimensions must remain congruent:the corporation's ideology;the corporation's behaviors; and society's demands and expectations. If a gap exists between any of these dimensions, a corporation will not be perceived as legitimate by society and is thereby deemed to be unsustainable. COMMUNICATION'S ROLE IN THE PROCESS The petroleum industry became shockingly aware of the importance of communication in the legitimization process at the time of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Exxon as well as the other Alyeska members were concerned about the potential of increased regulation of the industry due to the public outcry of dissatisfaction with the industry's performance. Therefore, Exxon and the Alyeska members attempted to legitimize themselves through increased environmental disclosures in their annual reports4. Environmental reporting has evolved from statements or short sections of qualitative discussion in annual reports to stand-alone documents (both hard copy and electronic). The first-stand alone documents were green glossies and newsletters. Now, progressive corporations link their environmental reporting to their environmental management systems, and regard reporting an important "learning" process in improving environmental performance. However, the evolution continues toward sustainability, recognizing the integration of economic, environmental, and social activities. DRIVING FORCES Most early attempts at environmental communication were driven by concern about incongruencies in the sustainability model (Figure 1).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207