Sustainability reporting: external motivators and internal facilitators
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
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of internal variables, such as strategic governance and operational controls, along with external variables that influence sustainability reporting. Design/methodology/approach – Building on the corporate governance and sustainability reporting literature, the authors develop a model to integrate external motivators and internal facilitators to determine their impact on sustainability reporting. The authors also control for a number of financial and non-financial variables that may influence sustainability reporting. The authors limit their sample to the companies in extractive industries that report their greenhouse gas emission to the Government of Canada. The authors collected the data from several data sources including secondary archival databases, newspapers, Web sites and annual reports. Findings – Using a sample of companies in high-polluting industries, the authors found that variables representing both external pressures that act as motivators and internal controls that act as facilitators are significantly associated with enhanced sustainability reporting. Practical implications – Considering the formation of several international initiatives such as International Integrated Reporting Council to improve sustainability reporting for decision-making, the authors’ research provides interesting insights both to policymakers and managers about organizational characteristics that are important to make reporting useful and relevant. Originality/value – Little academic research has investigated the role of internal variables in facilitating sustainability reporting. The authors use a robust model that combines external and internal variables to more thoroughly understand the reporting process.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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