The impact of diversity and inclusion on corporate reputation, communications strategy and social citizenship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the impact of diversity and inclusion (D&I) through the lens of corporate reputation, communications strategy and social citizenship (corporate social responsibility). The literature review provides a snapshot of current work completed in this field along with key definitions, theories and supporting evidence, further contributing to the conversation of D&I strategy. Content analysis provides insight into how some organizations refer to, or talk about D&I on their websites. Analysis shows a very wide range of results that varies from having no reference to D&I, a ‘medium’ amount of content and materials, all the way to a comprehensive set of webpages that highlight D&I as a concept while sharing how it is implemented and practiced. Data was also gathered from a total of 12 interviews, conducted with Canadian communications and/or D&I leaders of various industries. Some key findings include how organizations are implementing D&I programs, how D&I is impacting corporate reputation, how closely D&I should be tied to the communications function’s goals, the connection/relationship between CSR and D&I, and how D&I can impact the local community. The overarching set of takeaways is that D&I is understood by all participants as being very important in business strategy. Some organizations have only just started to consider this as part of their larger strategy, others might be slowly implementing tactics, while some organizations share very robust strategy and tactical components.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".