Non-monetary narratives motivate businesses to engage with climate change
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 The dominant narrative to motivate business actors to take climate actions emphasizes opportunities to increase monetary gains, linking sustainability to the financial goals of these organizations. The prevalence of monetary motivations in sustainability communication among businesses, consultancies, academics and international organizations has made this narrative a truism in the private sector. We conducted an online, real-world, large- n experiment to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different motivations using narrative communication. We show that non-monetary narratives highlighting prosocial or achievement motivations are 55% more effective in creating responses from businesses than narratives emphasizing monetary gains. These findings are robust across most narrative and audience characteristics, including age and language. Our findings suggest that communication towards business leaders around sustainability can be multi-pronged and should incorporate prosocial and achievement motivations aside from articulating potential financial benefits.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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