Why Firms Delay Reaching True Sustainability
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
Abstract This paper explores a discrepancy between what the literature says about sustainability and how sustainability is actually practiced. Our analysis reveals that we are in a transition era in which firms incrementally offset – rather than eliminate – their negative impacts on the environment and society. We also argue that external stakeholders have yet to create the conditions that would compel firms to become truly sustainable. We further find that a firm's response to external pressure to become truly sustainable greatly depends on its capabilities. For large firms, the decision to become truly sustainable is driven by their ability to manage external stakeholders’ expectations, with the most innovative of large firms remaining unsustainable even in the long term. In contrast, small innovative firms guide their decision‐making based on their internal readiness to change and therefore will be the first to reach true sustainability. Finally, and regardless of size, firms that lack an innovation capability are unlikely to become truly sustainable; they will struggle to survive the transition era.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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