Determinants of voluntary CSR reporting reliability – evidence from Canada
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 study is twofold: to examine the reliability of voluntary corporate social responsibility reporting (CSRR) to determine whether users can rely on the information released by corporations and to examine the determinants of CSRR reliability in a voluntary context. Design/methodology/approach This study analyses the information included in a sample of 190 standalone corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports issued by Canadian corporations listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange S&P/TSX Composite Index from 2016 to 2018. Findings The results of this study show that CSR reports lack reliability. The determinants identified (image, corporate governance and financialisation) partially explain the quality of the information disclosed. As well, the results suggest that corporations may attempt to manipulate users’ perception through their disclosures. Practical implications TThis study provides a greater understanding of the current state of CSRR in a voluntary context. It offers further insights into the strategies corporations use to manage impressions through CSR disclosures. Social implications This study provides further empirical data as to current shortcomings of voluntary CSRR and the potential benefits of further regulation. Originality/value Few studies have specifically focused on the reliability of CSRR and its determinants in a voluntary context.
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 | 0.016 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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