Search results

The aim of the article is to investigate what characterizes the information constructs that the archival discourse and the open data discourse communicate in text, and what their similarities and differences are. This article proposes that it is possible to see the open data initiative and modern archival practice as two discourses that have used different terminology to express and communicate their messages in the literature. In this article, we have applied a hypothesis-like assumption that the information constructs used in open data are actually nothing other than records, as they are in the archival discourse.

This article is based on a mixed method approach. A quantitative text analysis (word count) was carried out in a large set of documents representing the open data discourse and in the archival discourse. This was followed by a qualitative text analysis.

It was found that both discourses did focus on records. However, the opendata discourse very seldom used the term record, but used information and data much more frequently. The archival discourse used the term information almost as often as record. A possible adaption of communication strategies can be identified, targeting a much wider audience through a user-centered approach. This could be an indication of a change in the archival discourse, which seems to be moving from a discourse that is very much regulated by law toward a discourse that is more focused on benefit and usability.

This research indicates that it is possible to interpret both the open data and the archival discourse as one united discourse, an effect derived from working with e-government. There is an ongoing harmonization of the words used, and in the studied archival discourse, a more user- and business-oriented focus can be seen.

The purpose of this study is to analyse the views stock market actors have on corporate communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR) information grounded on legitimacy and stakeholder theory. Recent findings suggest that management teams experience an increased interest and demand for CSR information from the actors on the stock market and that this underlie a focus shift. This is quite astonishing considering that the interest from just stock market actors in CSR information always has been meagre. However, due to lack of recent studies, it has not been confirmed that de facto there has been a trend shift among stock market actors towards an increased interest in CSR information.

The data are derived from in-depth semi-structured interviews with financial analysts at international investment banks.

The study confirms that the focus shift is not at all driven by the actors in the stock market. Quite the opposite. They express mistrust towards this information and a continued meagre interest in it.

Findings from the study suggest the need for more research on how different stakeholders view CSR information. It also opens up for discussions on regulations concerning CSR information.

The findings imply that management teams might have deluded themselves and become victim to what Christensen and Cheney (2000) refer to as self-seduces, i.e. seeing things that are not really there. The findings might also indicate an enlargement of the stakeholder perspective. Thus, a subtle shift from a bilateral relationship (company – shareholders) towards a multilateral set of relationships (company – stakeholders) camouflaged under the justification from management teams that the increased interest comes from the stock market.

The study contributes to the scarce research on how actors in the stock market view CSR. The findings are of interest and relevance to the business and academic communities in their ongoing quest of unravelling the core of CSR and business ethics.