Measuring sustainability risks: A rational myth?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this paper is to investigate the rigorousness and reliability of sustainability rating agencies' evaluation of corporate sustainability risks. Using grounded theory, this study conducts a qualitative analysis of 32 semi‐structured interviews with practitioners involved in this activity and shows the trade‐offs and rational myths underlying this evaluation process. The image of rationality and rigorousness projected by sustainability risk measurements is mostly intended to address the increasing institutional pressures for reliable and comparable information, particularly from institutional investors and socially responsible investment decision makers. Nevertheless, risk analysts face serious challenges due to the lack of reliable information, the unpredictability of sustainability risks, the methodological issues related to the measurement process, and the complexity and context‐dependency of risk assessment. These challenges call into question the official and optimistic rhetoric of rating agencies. This study contributes to the literature on sustainability risks and rational myths in organizations. Managerial implications and avenues for future research are also discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.205 | 0.316 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.110 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".