What matters for socially responsible investment (SRI) in the natural resources sectors? SRI mutual funds and forestry in North America
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Socially responsible investment mutual funds have played an active role in encouraging sustainability in the natural resources sectors, particularly in North America's forest industry which tends to be reactive in adopting sustainable practices. A survey of socially responsible investment mutual funds in Canada and the US was first undertaken in 2006 and then replicated in 2010--11 to understand the implications of this growing investment practice on the natural resources sector, with a focus on forestry. While we did not expect to find a convergence in environmental, social or governance criteria among funds, this study found that environmental criteria are most important to respondents in evaluating natural resource stocks, and that this is stable over time and consistent according to fund size. Governance criteria became prominent in 2010--11, perhaps a result of the Global Financial Crisis. These results build on literature examining the investment evaluation process for socially responsible mutual funds. What the findings highlight is that evaluation criteria are dynamic, responding to changing attitudes and firms should consider this in developing their sustainability agenda. Some socially responsible mutual funds have played a unique role in the forest sector, working collectively with Non-Government Organisations and civil actors to influence forest companies to improve sustainability, and have divested shares in forest companies that do not comply with their demands. Our results improve understanding for what is important to socially responsible mutual funds in evaluating the forest sector. The study shows a decline in importance for forest certification over the period and that the Forest Stewardship Council scheme is viewed as most credible by respondents. However, poor financial returns in the forest sector may constrain further attention from socially responsible mutual funds.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it