From sustainability constraints to innovation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to connect the literatures on sustainability, innovation and paradox to suggest that sustainability constraints – simultaneously addressing commercial and sustainability goals – will increase organizational innovation. Design/methodology/approach Drawing from the literatures on paradox, innovation and sustainability, the authors develop theory about how managers can deliberately enhance the generation and implementation of creative ideas within their organizations. Findings The authors build on the existing literature that suggests sustainability considerations should be strategically and deeply integrated elements of business activity by developing arguments about how such integration improves organizational performance. The authors argue sustainability considerations, by creating unique forms of constraints, improve organizational success by enhancing creative idea generation and implementation. Practical implications Even strategic leaders espousing to only maximize economic efficiency face the challenge of effectively managing sustainability constraints. The discrepancy between what they should do and the problems they face means strategic leaders often have fewer tools to manage and reflect on their own decision-making than is available in the management literature. This paper presents arguments from diverse research that describes potential decision processes and their outcomes. Social implications This paper highlights an important shift in how sustainability constraints are fundamental drivers of long-term organizational performance. Originality/value Extant literature treats the simultaneous attention to sustainability concerns and commercial success as difficult accomplishments of clever strategic leaders. Instead, the authors propose that simultaneous attention to sustainability and commercial imperatives is fundamental to long-term organizational success, because it is a powerful determinant of new products, services and business models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".