The Definition of Firm Boundaries and Its Impact on Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The way in which the boundaries of a firm are defined also determines its responsibilities. Besides the firm’s goals of profitability and survival, there are implications beyond its physical boundaries, such as sustainability. There are several definitions of the boundaries of a firm, each one with its own implications. Considering external resources related to the firm may allow decision makers to take responsibility for what takes place beyond its frontiers. Because firms are not isolated, sustainability goes beyond the boundaries of the firm and requires incorporating external factors.The relation of a firm with its external factors can be established in several dimensions; one of them is considering the relation of the firm with its environment. In this study, we reviewed literature on firm boundaries and found out that the boundaries, limits, and responsibilities of firms are not sharply defined. An interesting point is that the boundaries of the firm can be expanded to account for external resources and the impact of the firm’s activities, so that the firm may take steps to reduce its green footprint and contribute to sustainability from the perspective of the triple bottom line, which includes economic, social, and environmental aspects.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".