Views of Sustainable Development: A Typology of Stakeholders' Conflicting Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Companies encounter environmental conflicts with stakeholders who hold differing views about what constitutes sustainable development. This is a particular problem for corporations whose operations span the developed and developing worlds. In this chapter, three socio-economic and political conditions, the traditional, the modern, and the postmodern, are associated with three different sets of societal values and views of the relationship between humans and the natural environment. The transitions between each pair are the processes of modernization, postmodernization, and neotribalization. The three societal values types and three processes correspond to six views of sustainable development that are associated with six categories of environmental groups. The categories of groups are defense-of-own-space locals, responsible commons harvesters, conservationists, green parties and ecological modernizationists, save-the-plant activists, and counter-culture deep ecologists. Companies can use this typology to anticipate, understand, and help resolve, dilemmas created by stakeholders advocating sharply divergent programs for sustainable development.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".