Child labour risk organizing communication: a longitudinal analysis of corporate narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine how Nestlé organises and communicates its child labour risk discourse in its corporate reports Design/methodology/approach Data sources include various corporate reports and media reports for the period 2011–2021. A qualitative interpretive analysis was conducted to longitudinally investigate how the company organized and communicated the discourse of child labour risk over a two-decade period. Findings The organization transitions through four modes of organizing risk, namely, pre-prospectively, prospectively, in real-time and retrospectively. In each identified mode of risk organizing, the authors have identified a strategy related to the organization’s communications about child labour risk in its own operations and supply chains. The authors show that the organization moves from distancing (denying the existence of) to complying (admitting the possibility of), recognizing (admitting the existence of) and remediating (correcting the occurrence of) child labour risk. These risk communication strategies are connected to how the organization circles back to prospective risk analysis in a shell-like movement. Once the organization moves from the real-time mode to the retrospective mode, the organization’s risk communication efforts feature new risk appraisal tools whilst providing the organization with a new higher profile as an expert in child labour risk assessment. The authors argue that the communication of risk organizing has performative effects. Practical implications The findings have significant implications for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework and the United Nations Guiding Principles on business and human rights. The authors argue that without radical progress in eradicating child labour from the corporate supply chains, the SDG 8.7 target of eliminating child labour by 2025 is simply not going to be achieved. Originality/value The authors build upon and extend a risk organizing framework by examining the child labour risk organizing disclosures of Nestlé. The authors extend the framework by adding a new mode of organizing risk – pre-prospective risk organizing.
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 | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".