Corporate Sustainability: A Model Uncertainty Analysis of Materiality
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 For decades, scholars searched for a connection between a corporation's current performance with respect to sustainability and the future returns of its stock. In 2016, Khan, Serafeim, and Yoon published an apparent breakthrough in this quest: guidance on materiality from the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board allowed the construction of corporate sustainability scales that reliably predicted stock returns. Their finding had immediate and broad impact, but it remains, in its authors' own words, just “first evidence.” Here, we further explore the relationship between material-sustainability and stock returns by performing a “model uncertainty analysis.” We reproduce the original estimate but conclude that it is a statistical artifact. We then use machine learning to explore the practicality of employing historical associations to determine which aspects of sustainability are material to investors. We conclude that, for one popular source of data on corporate sustainability, accurate guidance on materiality may be difficult to achieve. JEL Classifications: Q51; D22; L25; C11; C18.
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 | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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