Investment in Environmental Process Improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyze a firm's investment in environmental process improvement (EPI) to reduce the environmental impact (EI) of its manufacturing processes in relation to various internal firm characteristics and in response to different external regulatory drivers. We provide a deep understanding of how these internal and external forces cause the firm to pursue EPI earlier or later in the planning horizon and at an increasing or a decreasing rate over time. In particular, we show how a regulator can drive different patterns of EPI over time through subsidies for EPI or penalties for EI. We also explore the impacts of two key operational capabilities of the firm—the production‐cost efficiency of EPI and the effectiveness of EPI in reducing EI—on the rate of EPI over time. We demonstrate that improvements in these operational capabilities contrastingly alter the timing of investments in EPI. Lastly, we demonstrate that a firm capable of leveraging EPI to enhance product functionality or command a reputational premium in the marketplace pursues a remarkably different pattern of EPI over time compared to a cost‐focused firm that only responds to regulatory forces.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".