MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284683543 · doi:10.1002/jid.3682

Multinational enterprises' sustainability practices and focus on developing countries: Contributions and unexpected results of SDG implementation

2022· article· en· W4284683543 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Development · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Socioeconomic Development
Canadian institutionsÉcole Nationale d'Administration PubliqueAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityPovertyMultinational corporationPledgeDeveloping countryChinaLatin AmericansInequalityEconomic growthDevelopment economicsSustainable developmentConsumption (sociology)Political scienceEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article examines multinationals' (MNEs) sustainability practices focusing on the SDGs in developing countries through studying sustainability reports of multinationals from China (CMNEs) and developed countries (DMNEs). Findings show significant differences in MNEs' approaches to the SDGs. DMNEs prioritise education, health and poverty, whereas CMNEs emphasise poverty, education and cities in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Conversely, inequality, hunger, consumption and production, oceans and peace, justice and strong institutions are poorly addressed. Most importantly, while contributing to sustainability, they foster inequalities among developing countries by over‐focusing on China and India, against the pledge of Leaving No One Behind.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.295 · 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