Sustainability fellowships: the potential for collective stakeholder influence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – Given the current ecological state of the planet organizations now need to develop their sustainability to a significantly greater extent and at a faster pace. This paper aims to propose stakeholder collectives as a means for rapid and comprehensive sustainability, while also examining the moderating influence of firm size and change potential. Design/methodology/approach – A theoretical analysis leads to the development of multiple propositions. The work concentrates on one research question: how can the authors bring about rapid and comprehensive organizational sustainability? Findings – Arguments for the inability of individual stakeholders to drive the level of sustainability now required are presented. Propositions suggesting that sustainability can be obtained through stakeholder collectives, moderated by firm size and the change potential of the firm are developed. Research limitations/implications – Research using stakeholder theory has examined intra-stakeholder group collective action, but arguably the more important, inter-stakeholder group collective action, has received little attention. The authors elaborate the prospects for collective stakeholder influence strategies as useful for increasing sustainability. Originality/value – The main contribution is the nexus between stakeholder influence strategies and the collective goal of sustainability. By examining an underdeveloped component of stakeholder theory, the authors answer the question how stakeholders can drive the extensive and rapid organizational sustainability now required.
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 | 0.025 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".