Search results

Governance initiatives based on rankings are predicated on the possibility of making companies compete for the achievement of social goals by means of public comparisons of performance. The public of such performance – the ranker and various stakeholders in whose name the ranker speaks – thus fulfills the role of a “third party” whose favor is sought by competitors in what Simmel analyzed as “pure” or “indirect” competition. Yet little is known about how rankers seek to produce or entice such favor in order to enact competition. Through the case of the Access to Medicine Index, we examine the process of selective foregrounding, enticing and orchestration of different stakeholders through the gearing of the ranking’s information infrastructure aimed at optimizing the type and intensity of the competitive pressure exercised on the ranked. We illustrate how the ranker segments the public into different third parties, some well-identified stakeholders alongside a more anonymous audience. We find that stakeholders perceived as wielding legitimate power in the eyes of companies (such as investors) are actively equipped with the tools to witness competition, whereas stakeholders seen as powerful but involved in an agonistic relation with the companies (such as radical Non-Governmental Organizations) are discretely groomed at a distance, while those stakeholders with no perceived power over companies tend to remain unequipped. Whilst the gaze of stakeholders as third parties is differentiated along the lines of a hierarchy of observations, the voice of stakeholders as representatives of different interests is equalized and unified so as to adhere to an ideal of consensus. We reflect on how the needs of competition and those of stakeholder representation come to intersect in the particular governance space of access to medicine. Competition, far from being the automatic consequence of rankings, emerges as a contrived and laborious enactment requiring painstaking attention to publics and their selective equipment as third parties. Understanding the modes of such enactment is thus crucial for appreciating rankings’ governance outcomes.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) member schools often compare their faculties’ research records to journal lists of their “peer and aspirational” programs. They often survey faculty and administrators’ perceptions of journal quality; number of Social Sciences Citation Index downloads; or “count” the number of faculty publications – but rarely analyze accounting programs’ actual journal quality lists. To examine this issue, we use a survey of national accounting programs. We identify a set of quality-classified journal lists by sampling 38 programs nationwide, varying by mission (e.g., urban or research), degrees granted (e.g., doctoral degrees in accounting), and national ranking (e.g., classified as a Top 75 Research Program) – from which we derive 1,436 data points that classify 359 journals that appear on these 38 programs’ journal lists. We also describe a case study that an accounting program used to revise its old journal list. We also find that while programs generally use generally accepted “bright lines” among the top three categories (A+, A, A−), they tailor their listings from the wide variety of B or C classified journals to create their own sets of acceptable journals in these categories. The study provides guidance and data for accounting programs who wish to develop or revise their own journal lists. While many studies have examined journal rankings, this is the first study to document the use of journal lists by accounting programs with a wide array of missions.

This chapter outlines how search engine technology can be used in online public access catalogs (OPACs) to help improve users’ experiences, to identify users’ intentions, and to indicate how it can be applied in the library context, along with how sophisticated ranking criteria can be applied to the online library catalog. A review of the literature and the current OPAC developments forms the basis of recommendations on how to improve OPACs. Findings were that the major shortcomings of current OPACs are that they are not sufficiently user-centered and that their results presentations lack sophistication. Furthermore, these shortcomings are not addressed in current 2.0 developments. It is argued that OPAC development should be made search-centered before additional features are applied. Although the recommendations on ranking functionality and the use of user intentions are only conceptual and not yet applied to a library catalogue, practitioners will find recommendations for developing better OPACs in this chapter. In short, readers will find a systematic view on how the search engines’ strengths can be applied to improving libraries’ online catalogs.

The use of national and international rankings of universities is increasing rapidly. Dill and Soo (2005), who take a generally positive view of university league tables, review the performance of some leading examples of the genre. They conclude that “Our review of the five leading commercial university league tables from Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US suggests that the definitions of academic quality used in these tables are converging…It would be valuable to extend the analysis to league tables developed in Europe, Asia, and Latin America to see the extent to which a common construct of academic quality is becoming truly international” (Dill & Soo, 2005, pp. 525–526).

Research on green certificate rankings in the MENA region primarily focuses on building scale, relying on the certified project count. This assessment approach overlooks the spatial factor, failing to capture their influence on the urban built environment, thus potentially undermining other efforts not reflected by the project count. This research aims to rank countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) region based on their ongoing efforts regarding green neighbourhood certification.

This study employs a three-phase methodology to rank MENA countries' adoption of green neighbourhood certification systems: content analysis, multicriteria analysis (MCA) using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and spatial analysis.

Based on the content analysis, four major performance indicators were identified and the conventional ranking using projects count was presented. Using AHP, the MCA could rank the countries in the region according to their unique performance indicators score, clarifying the differences between conventional and AHP-based rankings. Finally, the spatial analysis phase uncovers shortcomings in the traditional ranking method, revealing inaccuracies and misrepresentations for several countries.

The study presents an innovative ranking methodology to monitor the green neighbourhood actions of countries in future development and establish a pioneering framework to evaluate the impact of green certifications within the region.

This paper aims to examine whether the position of universities in the times higher education (THE) impact rankings (IR) is related to the different dimensions of academic quality of universities according to the THE world universities ranking.

The research, based on universities ranked in the top 100 of THE IRs, uses a regression model obtained by the panel data method, using the fixed effects approach, to identify the relationship of academic quality dimensions with that ranking.

The results show an increase in the dissemination of information on sustainable development goals (SDGs) by universities. In addition, it is shown that research, number of citations and international outlook are positively associated with a higher score obtained by universities in THE IRs, which implies a higher impact on the SDGs by these universities.

Based on multifaceted theories, the study highlighted the universities that are best positioned in the THE IRs in relation to their contribution to the SDGs.

The study aims to investigate market reactions associated with the JUST 100 rankings published by JUST Capital, a non-profit organization, as well as differences in financial reporting quality and performance between selected firms and their industry peers.

This study uses a sample of 431 firms selected as the 100 America’s Most Just Companies between 2016 and 2020 by JUST Capital. This study performs both an event study to determine whether the rankings are useful to investors and cross-sectional regression analyses on the characteristics of selected firms compared to their peers.

This study finds that investors react positively to selected firms around the time of the release of the JUST 100 rankings, suggesting that the rankings are decision-useful. This study also finds that selected firms exhibit higher accounting quality and financial performance than their peers.

Rankings may not be free from bias because of JUST Capital’s ownership of an exchange-traded fund.

The findings validate the rankings as well as the methodology used by JUST Capital, as they show market participants value firms that engage in socially responsible actions through their commitment to positively impact five key stakeholder groups: employees, customers, communities, environment and shareholders.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that shows the importance of the JUST 100 rankings for investment decisions. Considering the growing push for companies to disclose environmental, social and governance (ESG) activities, this study provides evidence to support ESG disclosure regulations.

The purpose of this research is to determine the competitive advantages of higher education institutions (HEIs) and create a new methodology to rank universities according to the competitive advantages.

The research determines the competitive advantages of HEIs by analysing expert opinions through a semi-structured interview form, matches codes and themes to performance indicators using Saldana's two-cycle coding methods, evaluates content validity through Lawshe and reveals the item weights of the ranking with analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Simple additive weighting (SAW) and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity (TOPSIS) methods were used for ranking universities.

Seven dimensions stand out in regard to what should be considered while ranking HEIs: research and publication, education, management, infrastructure, financial resources, human resources and social and economic contribution. Under the 7 dimensions, 69 indicators were determined.

The research provides a scientific reference point where HEIs can compare themselves with other HEIs regarding where they are in the sector, especially in terms of competitive advantages.

Although there are many different ranking methods that rank universities in the national and international literature, almost all these methods are largely based on the outputs of the university such as the number of publications, the number of patents, the number of projects, etc. A framework which ranks universities by considering different aspects of the institution, such as management, human resources and financial resources, has not been developed yet. In this respect, this research aims to fill this gap in the literature.

Given the importance of third-party endorsements as external cues during purchase evaluations, the manipulation of endorsements may raise consumers’ suspicion and thereby reduce the effectiveness of marketing messages. Consumers find it increasingly difficult to distinguish between authentic and biased brand reviews. This research conducts two experiments regarding brand rankings of third-parties in four industries. Study 1 aims to probes the interaction effect of persuasion knowledge and fairness of rating method (fair vs. unfair) on brand rankings’ credibility and brand image enhancement. Study 2 examines the interplay of dispositional persuasion knowledge and reputation of third parties (high vs. low).

This research builds on an analysis of data (Study 1, N = 122; Study 2, N = 123) from Taiwan, where brand rankings held by third-party organizations are regular. The hypotheses were tested using SPSS’s PROCESS macro.

Drawing on previous research of persuasion knowledge, the authors find that a fair rating method and a high reputation of third-party organization can mitigate the negative effect of persuasion knowledge.

The results of this research suggest that marketers need to manage third-party endorsements carefully. Consumer skepticism toward these endorsements (e.g. third-party’s brand rankings) can be weakened when persuasion attempt is considered appropriate.

This is one of the first efforts to empirically explore the influences of persuasion knowledge on third-party endorsements. The importance of this work is underscored by the fact that a growing number of third-party endorsements are sponsored or even manipulated by brand owners.