Ceremonial conformity: navigating institutional complexity and uncertainty in corporate political activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine Canadian institutional investors’ interest in the political activities of their portfolio companies and the companies’ strategic responses. This study also explores the decoupling of social and political responsibilities of companies, contributing to underexplored institutional and ethical perspectives in corporate political activity (CPA) analysis. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a qualitative content analysis of diverse public documents produced by crucial actors in the responsible investment (RI) industry, such as associations; standard setters; environmental, social and governance (ESG) providers; responsible investors’ funds; and companies belonging to those funds. Findings Companies’ CPA disclosures frequently show inconsistency and opacity, reflecting similar issues in ESG ratings. Differences in perceptions of CPA’s importance among ESG standards may cause this inconsistency. While sustainability metrics often neglect CPAs, particularly lobbying in ESG reports, responsible investors, even those following PRI, seem to distance themselves, not rigorously overseeing CPA disclosures. The findings indicate that institutional uncertainty prompts companies to offer only superficial compliance to investor expectations. Originality/value The present approach comprehensively explores corporate political actions, encompassing diverse perspectives within the RI industry. This study examines the disparity between responsible investors’ declared intentions and their real-world actions concerning corporate political responsibility. Finally, the authors emphasize that institutional complexity results in a disconnect between responsible investors’ policies and their actual investment practices. This decoupling is also evident between corporate policies and their disclosures and between the expectations of standard setters and rating agencies.
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 | 0.027 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".