MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300583563 · doi:10.1002/bse.3041

What drives and curbs brownwashing?

2022· article· en· W4300583563 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

VenueBusiness Strategy and the Environment · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenwashingStakeholderCorporate governanceBusinessAccountingTransparency (behavior)PhenomenonSample (material)Corporate social responsibilityPublic relationsPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Numerous studies have investigated the factors that drive or curb greenwashing activities, but few have discussed the other side of the coin, brownwashing, the underreporting of environmental achievements, another form of corporate decoupling that is harmful for stakeholders. Using a sample of 5459 firm–year observations over the period 2007–2017, this study tests and finds that industry leaders brownwash their environmental performance to avoid peer pressure and excessive stakeholder attention, and to preserve their firm's leadership. Consequently, legitimate firms tend to converge toward informal industry standards that engender standardized environmental disclosures. Nevertheless, this phenomenon can be curbed by adopting sound environmental governance mechanisms aimed at improving corporate transparency and environmental practices.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.175 · 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