The Policy Role of Corporate Carbon Management: Co‐regulating Ecological Effectiveness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) has called for private sector participation in global carbon governance and corporations now seem to be heeding the call at an unprecedented scale. Both critics and proponents of corporate social responsibility ( CSR ) interpret this as a necessary but uncertain development. Business response has demonstrably failed in the past. Contributing to the CSR and private environmental governance effectiveness literature, this article argues that while voluntary corporate climate governance efforts are essential and improving, they are far from sufficient for meaningful decarbonization. Through an evaluation of the three main underlying corporate carbon management practices (target setting, carbon pricing and carbon reporting), the article highlights how company efforts create business advantage (e.g. risk management) but fall short on ecological effectiveness (i.e. absolute carbon reduction). In response, the paper argues the importance of greater climate policy co‐regulation. This includes indirect enabling by governments and the IPCC to encourage incremental improvements in company efforts. It also includes more direct, state‐led prescriptive interventions coordinated across supply chains and supported by international organizations, to ensure corporate participation and deeper transformative change to business models, industry structures and consumptive patterns at the root of the global climate crisis.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it