TC Energy's Reaction to Indigenous Activism and Negative Media Coverage: Strategic Cosmetic Change? <sup>*</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study investigates the response of TC Energy Corporation, a major Canadian oil and gas corporation, to criticism regarding its environmental practices and treatment of Indigenous communities. The scrutiny centered on two controversial pipeline projects, Coastal GasLink and Keystone XL, which faced widespread protests and media attention from 2019 to 2022. Employing legitimacy theory and impression management literature, this research analyzes TC Energy's public communications and actions during this period. An in‐depth review of the corporation's reports reveals that, despite obtaining regulatory permits, TC Energy's operations were frequently criticized, particularly concerning environmental impact and Indigenous rights. Indigenous activism, including blockades by Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs, influenced public perception and corporate behavior. TC Energy's responses included asset divestments to fund green energy; launching an environmental, social, and governance forum; and improving environmental and social disclosures. However, while these initiatives aimed to restore legitimacy, the study identifies elements of symbolic disclosure, suggesting some actions were superficial attempts to placate stakeholders. This case highlights the impact of stakeholder pressure and media on corporate legitimacy and underscores the role of Indigenous activism in shaping corporate social responsibility reporting.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".