Enhancing Value for Canadian Organizations by Using Enterprise Risk Management as a Holistic Approach for Improving Environmental Management and Compliance
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
<p>Environmental risks are a cumbersome financial burden to any organization. This thesis aims to establish best practices for integrating environmental risks into the ERM holistic approach to creating value for Canadian organizations as strategic speculative risk. Culture, leadership, risk appetite, integrated risk framework and value are five pillars that may influence the integration process. </p> <p>The research involved four phases, including a review of the literature methodologies to determine the most appropriate approach to conduct the thesis, a scoping review of 54 academic articles, a content analysis of 20 sustainability reports for leading Canadian organizations. Finally, merging the results of both literature analyses generated a best practice list, which was analyzed against the research's five pillars. The thesis concluded the organizational culture supremacy on the overall integration process and reframing the environmental risks as a rewarded risk embraced with the ERM system, thus creating stakeholder value and enhancing business continuity.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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