Linkage between firm's sustainability strategies and corporate performance: a meta-analysis of global studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The balance between reasonable return on investment and long-term organisational viability has fuelled a significant amount of research to evaluate the effectiveness of corporate sustainability strategies. Several factors influence the relationship between a firm’s performance and its sustainable development strategies, and there is no clear ‘line of sight’ between performance and strategic behaviour. Most theoretical attempts to describe the relationship have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to produce robust conclusions for general guidance. Using a meta-analysis methodology, this article evaluates the aggregated performance outcomes of different corporate sustainability strategies that draw on data from 18 studies and more than 20,000 firms. The findings indicate a medium to strong positive relationship between sustainability-oriented strategies and a firm’s ‘triple bottom line’. Additionally, proactive sustainability-oriented strategies tend to result in higher payoff.
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 | 0.035 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".