Sustainable Business Practices in the United States: A Survey on Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey was designed and administered to 172 business professionals in the United States in 2015 to obtain their assessments of both the current status and future development of sustainable business practices at their companies. Despite the recent attention given to corporate social responsibility, we find that only 34 percent of respondents have a comprehensive sustainable management plan currently in place. However, the survey indicates that by 2021 that percentage is expected to increase to 54 percent. We also find that the six most popular sustainable business practices are recycling material, reducing waste, using less paper, employing energy-efficient technologies, conserving water, and adopting energy-efficient building designs. Respondents indicate their firms are likely to increase expenditures or investment in these same six sustainable practices from 2016-2021. This suggests these particular practices are viewed as being more feasible and beneficial to implement. Among the background variables investigated, we find that affiliation with an organization promoting sustainability is the most prominent; respondents affiliated with sustainability organizations are more likely to engage in sustainable business practices. Another significant background variable is firm size; large firms are more likely to be engaged in sustainable practices than smaller firms.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".