Importance of Sustainability Performance Indicators as Perceived by the Users and Preparers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although sustainability reporting has shown significant advances in the past decade, research has not kept pacewith these developments. Very few studies looked how stakeholders perceive the importance of sustainabilityreporting and disclosure. This paper explored how users and preparers rated the importance of performanceindicators suggested by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines regarding the environmental, economicand social impacts of a company. It provides evidence on which GRI performance indicators are perceived asrelevant and important by both preparers and users. We found that users and preparers generally agree with therelevance and importance of all the performance indicators included in the GRI G3 guidelines. Despite a fewareas of statistical disagreement, the overall perceptions were similar between users versus preparers regardingthe importance of the GRI indicators. The convergence of the usefulness of GRI guidelines as viewed by the twoconflicting stakeholders of users and preparers suggests that the stage may be ready for rule-making bodies andgovernmental agencies to further promote sustainability reporting by mandating uniform standards in reportingand disclosure.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".