The Determinants of MNEs’ Environmental R&D and the Role of Stakeholder Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates factors affecting multinational enterprise (MNE)’s environmental research and development (R&D), and observes how stakeholder pressure moderates these relationships. After analyzing 1,674 firms for the 2004–2012 periods using the ASSET4 database, we find that firms with poor reputations in environmental management and those with long-term oriented compensation policy tend to have higher levels of environmental R&D. Moreover, the findings were consistent with previous studies that found an important regulatory role in environmental R&D; firms in the biggest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting industries are likely to engage in environmental R&D when they participate in emissions trading. However, unlike previous studies conducted in single-country settings, this study suggests that in an international setting, sub-global regulations may not function as intended. MNEs with a high level of geographic diversification seem less likely to have higher levels of environmental R&D when they participate in emissions trading, suggesting the limited effectiveness of current emissions trading system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".