The change in corporate environmental strategies: a longitudinal empirical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to provide a research framework to explore the change in corporate environmental strategy based on the resource‐based view of the firm and institutionalization theory and to present empirical evidence that illustrates how environmental strategy has changed. Design/methodology/approach The framework and propositions are examined by using a longitudinal empirical analysis using mail surveys conducted in South Korea in 2001 and 2004. Findings This paper shows that there is a trend in the change of environmental strategies, with companies shifting their environmental stance along the nonlinear and evolutive paths. In addition, top management attitude towards the environment and a firm's slack resources are found to be significantly related to environmental strategic change. Research limitations/implications The research well reflects the changing social concern for environmental issues in Korea. This model can be applied to explain the change of corporate environmental strategy in other Asian countries, such as China and India. This paper has limitations, including a survey based on recall of the respondents and a relatively low response rate, which should be taken into consideration for further studies. Practical implications This paper enables corporate managers and practitioners to better understand the trend in environmental strategic change and suggests that managers should first consider top management's commitment and slack resources when the change of environmental strategy is planned. Originality/value This paper contributes to the knowledge in the research area where research efforts, both theoretical and empirical, dealing with environmental strategic change are beginning to emerge, and also provides the empirical evidences from a longitudinal analysis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".