Moving to the Next Strategy Stage: Examining Firms' Awareness, Motivation and Capability Drivers in Environmental Alliances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Complementing extant studies on the antecedents of firms' environmental strategy, this article focuses on the trajectories of corporate engagement in proactive environmental alliances. Specifically, we build an awareness–motivation–capability framework and analyze factors that drive the move beyond incremental pollution prevention and facilitate firms' engagement in transformative, sustainable development strategies in their alliances. Based on 212 environmental alliance‐related observations, our test results indicate limited explanatory power of regulatory pressures, but highlight the role of firms' environmental networks to sharpen their awareness to engage in transformative alliances. Further, we elaborate on the nuances and boundary conditions of firms' risk‐taking propensity, industry concentration, financial capacity and especially prior sector‐spanning experiences as motivation and capability drivers. These insights contribute to the discourse on firms' environmental strategy and alliance formation by depicting how and to what extent environment‐specific and more general firm attributes predispose them to engage in transformative rather than incremental environmental projects. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".