Search results

Despite the widespread studies on the attitudes about OA, there exists little comparative evidence about the opinions of author and non-author parties at a global level in a social context. To bridge the gap, this study first investigated the opinions of the users who posted at least one tweet about OA in 2019. Then, it zoomed in to explore the views of the OA-interested tweeters, i.e. the users who have posted five or more tweets about OA.

Using a content analysis method, with an opinion-mining approach, this study examined a sample of 9,268 OA-related tweets posted by 5,227 tweeters in 2019. The sentiments were analyzed using SentiStrength. A threshold of at least five tweets was set to identify the OA-interested tweeters.

Academics and scholars, library and information professionals, and journals and publishers were the main OA-interested tweeters, implying that OA debates have not been widely propagated from its traditional audience to the general public. Despite an overall positive attitude, the tweeters showed negative perspectives about the gold and hybrid models, validity and quality, and costs and funds. The negativity depended on the OA features tweeted, the tweeters' occupations and gender, as well as the trends.

The low societal impact of the OA debates calls for solutions to attract the public's attention and to exploit their potential to achieve the OA ideals. The OA stakeholders' divergence necessitates finding solutions to remedy the pitfalls. It also underlines the need for scrutiny into social layers when studying society's opinions and behaviors in a social network.

This is the first study in estimating the extent of the societal impact of OA debates, comparing the social OA stakeholders' opinions and their dependence on the OA features tweeted, the tweeter roles and gender and the tweet trending status.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-09-2022-0502

This study aims to contribute to the emerging debate about materiality with novel insights about the signaling effects related to the disclosure of environmental, social and governance (ESG) information using the guidelines released by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB).

An empirical assessment using panel data analysis was built to evaluate the relationship between sustainability reporting standards and analysts’ forecast accuracy.

The analysis revealed that the proliferation of sustainability reports prepared on mandatory or voluntary basis mitigated the signaling effects related to the disclosure of ESG information by companies. Furthermore, the additional analysis conducted considering sustainability reporting quality and ESG performance revealed the existence of mixed effects on analysts’ forecasts accuracy. Therefore, the insights highlighted the need to consider a cautionary approach in evaluating the contribution of ESG data to financial evaluations.

The practical implications consist of identifying criticisms related to disclosing ESG information by listed companies. In detail, the analysis underlines the need to enhance reporting standards’ interoperability to support the development of more accurate analysis by investors and financial experts.

The analysis reveals increasing attention investors pay to socially responsible initiatives, confirming that financial markets consider sustainability reporting as a strategic driver to engage with stakeholders and investors.

This research represents one of the first attempts to explore differences between GRI and SASB using an empirical approach.