Indicators for Sustainable Development
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract In 1996 Statoil, Amoco, BP, Conoco and Shell wished to benchmark how companies in the oil business deal with the issues of the environment and sustainable development. The initial conclusion was that a methodology or process had to be developed first. It was decided that the principle focus of the process should be the management systems that each company had in place and the sharing of best practice. A four year journey of discovery began. The process included the following elements: an agreement on assessing sustainable development through a process of mutual learning an agreement based on trust and openness to enable learning definition of relevant sustainable development indicators along the value chain a description of an implementation chain for management processes measuring management processes comparing and discussing results of measurement using case studies to modify and/or verify indicator definitions used in the process. GRI, Gothenburg Research Institute acted as facilitator and was primarily responsible for the format and organisation of the many project meetings. In 1997 the process that included what we called "Environmental Management Indicators" (EMI) for the oil industry was concluded. A final report was prepared, discussed and agreed upon. However, this final report became the first phase in applying the same process to consider the sustainable development issue. This second phase was more difficult and ambiguous, compared with the environmental management indicator exercise. No ready-made standards are available with regard to the definition and measurement of Corporate Social Responsibility. Although there is some more or less theoretical literature at hand, this literature is of relatively little use when it comes to definitions and measurement of management systems that deal with sustainability issues on a company level, specifically in the oil industry. Much effort went into defining indicators, measurements and profiles for single indicators and the management systems that control sustainable development issues in the companies. The exercise resulted in a methodology and a set of indicators for assessing a company's management of sustainable development, which probably is in the forefront of the development in this area. The process has been extremely interesting and proved valuable but there is still room for improvement. The benefits of this methodology have included: learning from the sharing of best practice providing a framework for discussions with others assessing where a company's strengths and gaps are
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,029 | 0,015 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».