Theorizing Firm Adoption of Sustaincentrism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the midst of a fundamental gap between theoretical assertions of a sustaincentric business paradigm and any rigorous empirical examination of its adoption at the firm level, I set out to answer the following two interrelated research questions: (1) How can we identify firms that adopt a sustaincentric paradigm and (2) What explains firm adoption of this paradigm? Based on cross-case comparisons of 12 African firms adopting a reactive, proactive, or sustaincentric orientation to sustainability, I develop a conceptual framework comprised of three interrelated constructs informed by descriptive observations across individual, organizational and interorganizational levels of analysis. Unlike their reactive and proactive counterparts, sustaincentric firms exhibited critical multilevel characteristics that demonstrated capacity for cognitive complexity and linked them closely to a highly interconnected network of external actors, the combination of which enabled the achievement of competitive advantage based on sustaincentrism.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it