Some considerations for applying business sustainability practices to campus environmental challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To explore how universities can adopt sustainability practices that have proven to be successful in business. Design/methodology/approach Draws on several sources of theory (internationally published literatures in business, sustainability, and education) and practice (primarily US business and university practice) to develop a framework. Findings Two seemingly divergent trends have created a unique opportunity for universities to significantly improve their environmental performance: the increasing importance to businesses of managing the natural environment and the growing awareness that universities cannot continue to isolate themselves from the community in which they are embedded. The first of these trends has caused a previously untapped source of ideas to become energized into thinking about how to move toward a more sustainable world. The second trend has caused a previously “introspective‐to‐a‐fault” institution to look beyond itself for ways of thinking and acting. Practical implications The intersection of the two trends is a powerful place, where new and successful approaches to managing the natural environment, albeit from what might be thought of as a non‐traditional source, can be absorbed by an institution that has significant environmental impact and an even more significant responsibility to future generations. Originality/value Provides a focus on the huge opportunities for applying some of the environmental lessons learnt by business to higher education.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".