MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1616588385

Sustainability Matters: Why and How Corporate Boards Should Become Involved

2012· article· en· W1616588385 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Vidal, Archie B. Carroll, Kareem M. Shabana, Janet E. Kerr, Matteo Tonello, John Peloza, Jingzhi Shang, Katherine N. Lemon, John H. Roberts, Priya Raghubir, Russell S. Winer, Shuili Du, CB Bhattacharya, Sankar Sen, Baruch Lev, Christine Petrovits, Suresh Radhakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityCorporate sustainabilityCorporate governanceSustainability organizationsBusinessCorporationSustainability scienceSocial sustainabilityCorporate social responsibilityCorporate communicationAccountingSustainability reportingCorporate lawCorporate securityStakeholderPublic relationsFinancePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corporate sustainability can be broadly defined as the pursuit of a business growth strategy by allocating financial or in-kind resources of the corporation to a social or environmental initiative. Today, more than ever, corporate sustainability has risen to the status of strategic business matter and demands supervision from the top. However, despite the extensive body of literature available on corporate governance and sustainability as separate areas of research, minimal attention has been paid to the interaction between the two. In particular, there is limited knowledge of the role that should be performed by the board of directors in designing, endorsing, and overseeing the implementation of a corporate sustainability program.The publication highlights a series of issues for a pragmatic boardroom discussion on the subject. Chapters include:- The business case for corporate sustainability.- The legal case for corporate sustainability.- Emerging board practices in corporate sustainability oversight.- Sustainability and customer value.- Sustainability performance assessment.- Sustainability communication.- Sustainability and corporate philanthropy.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.011
Scholarly communication0.0160.018
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207