Towards a standardised management system for corporate sustainable development
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 systematic implementation and assessment of corporate sustainable development is difficult in the absence of a structured approach. The existing management systems and frameworks do not provide a balanced approach to the management of the triple bottom line of sustainable development. The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibility of developing a sustainable development management system (SDMS) and provides a basic framework for such a system. Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews the approaches that can be employed to embody the various elements of a SDMS – including underlying values, system requirements, continual improvement, and assessment approaches. Advantages and disadvantages of developing a SDMS are also reviewed. Findings – Descriptive guidelines augmented by prescriptive requirements could provide a comprehensive guide to corporate sustainable development management and assessment through a hybrid approach. A basic structure for the descriptive guidelines, prescriptive requirements, and assessment approaches is provided. Practical implications – The paper could provide a needed starting point for managers to structure their thinking related to their organisation's sustainability initiatives. Originality/value – The existing systems and guidelines addressing sustainable development are characterised by several limitations. This paper provides a unique framework for corporate sustainable development that has not been addressed in previous publications.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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