MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093630841 · doi:10.3390/jrfm13110249

Barriers to Green Entrepreneurship: An ISM-Based Investigation

2020· article· en· W3093630841 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anas A. Makki, Hisham Alidrisi, Asif Iqbal, Basil Omar Al-Sasi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindsetEntrepreneurshipIncentiveSustainabilityBusinessBureaucracyGovernment (linguistics)Economic shortageSet (abstract data type)Industrial organizationMarketingEnvironmental economicsPublic relationsEconomicsFinancePolitical scienceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Green entrepreneurship is a novel sustainability term. A strategy has recently been put forward to make a business greener by minimizing the harmful impact on the environment and committing to sustainability while maintaining financial imperishability. However, some barriers prevent its implementation to its full potential. This study aims at investigating such barriers following the interpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach for analyzing relationships among them and for their prioritization, for the effective construction of green entrepreneurship. The study revealed that collaboration among stakeholders of business activities is vital to green entrepreneurship. Results also show that R&D and technology are foundational to overcoming other barriers, such as the costs associated with green initiatives, lack of knowledge and subjective awareness in the market, shortage of investors and involvement of private sectors, government regulations, cultural differences, dominating industries, lack of incentive and support mechanism, and bureaucracy. Subsequently, the results indicated that overcoming these barriers will enable us to change the short-term mindset of investors towards green entrepreneurship. Implications of this study include using the revealed set of barriers and their modeled relationships for policymaking as well as the development of better targeted and more effective strategies to overcome these barriers, enabling its implementation to its full potential.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicEnvironmental Sustainability in BusinessFrench-language works237,207