Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this action research is to begin to assess to what extent organizations have in practice begun to make the shift towards triple bottom line (TBL) sustainability. Design/methodology/approach A definition of TBL sustainability is provided, and key elements of TBL sustainability considered necessary to success are identified based on current literature and public commentary. An assessment is made via published surveys and an action research study of how these components are being addressed now and for the future. The action research study involved the design and launching of a Zoomerang survey that was posted both in the USA and on international websites and blogs. Findings The synthesis from the research reveals a lack of a clear definition of sustainability which sets in motion a whole systemic dynamic. The data from the action research exemplify this dynamic. First, there is a pattern of adopting a short‐term focus and expediency in decision making. Second, problem solving favors the “quick fix” over thoughtful consideration and development of the key components for sustainability. The research may also lead to questioning the urgency of implementing the very complex systemic TBL sustainability at this time in view of widespread climate concerns, versus concentrating on the more straightforward carbon footprint reduction. Research limitations/implications A major implication is the pressing need to clearly define sustainability and its organizational implications. Organizations must then make the shift from a short‐term perspective to more of a long‐term perspective, such that the clearly defined sustainability concerns will be addressed. Research conclusions are based on limited published data and a single survey; further research is required to substantiate the conclusions. Practical implications Sustainability is making some inroads in organizations but far too many organizations are only “going through the motions” with predictable results for overall need for improvement. A cohesive, clear linkage among the defining characteristics of sustainability, and guidelines for implementation, are proposed in this paper. Originality/value This action research presents data on how sustainability is actually viewed and implemented in organizations, and suggests from a systemic point of view which critical components of sustainability are yet to be seriously addressed.
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 | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".