Perspectives on corporate responsibility and sustainable development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this paper is to address the difficulty in describing sustainable development at an organizational level caused by the diverse meanings assigned to the term across different organization types. Design/methodology/approach The study was based on a meta‐narrative analysis of a select set of research literature on sustainability in organizations. Using interpretive synthesis to extract the key perspectives on what sustainable development means across organization types, the resulting categories of organizational sustainability were presented in a taxonomy and represented on Swanson and Zhang's Map of Organizational Forms to help describe their characteristics. Findings The findings reveal that sustainable development at an organization level has different meanings for different kinds of organizations. The relative weightings afforded the individual elements of sustainability – economic, environmental, social, and cultural – differ between organization types depending on a range of factors. Four new categories of organizational sustainability are presented and described. Practical implications The findings are expected to help researchers conduct further studies into organizational level sustainable development by providing them with distinct categories within which to focus their work. Originality/value This paper presents a taxonomy of organizational level sustainability perspectives and examines some of the factors that define the classifications. The viewpoints offered should deepen understanding as to why some organizations embrace and implement wide‐ranging and complex sustainability principles while others view sustainability in narrow terms – such as focusing almost exclusively on maintaining their own economic viability.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".