Green Accolades and Oil‐Soaked Mermaids: A Sociology of Worth Perspective on BP's Sustainability Reporting and the Deepwater Horizon Disaster*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Sustainability reporting was originally intended to improve accountability by providing more transparency around the ecological impact of organizational action. However, as sustainability reports are increasingly used as a tool for legitimacy and a source of information by financial stakeholders, environmental concerns are being framed in economic terms. This paper draws on Boltanski and Thévenot's (2006, On Justification: Economies of Worth, Princeton University Press) sociology of worth framework to explore how the prioritization of market values facilitates the disconnect between sustainability reporting and the environment. We use the Deepwater Horizon disaster as an extreme case to illustrate how the one‐sided “compromises” with market values subjugate the values associated with social and environmental stewardship. We suggest that the integration of different conceptions of the common good can provide a more nuanced understanding of the relations between economic and environmental values.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".