ENSURE THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Despite the assertions made by several organizations regarding their engagement in sustainable development, empirical evidence suggests a lack of comprehensive understanding regarding its specific components. The primary objective of this research is to critically reassess the conceptualization of sustainability and illustrate how an organization's utilization of accounting practices can impede its capacity to discover sustainable practices. Design/methodology/approach: This study presents an analysis of the limitations inherent in current definitions of organizational activity and presents a theoretical argument that highlights the importance of redefining efficiency in order to achieve sustainability. The findings of the study indicate that efficiency is not achieved solely via cost reduction, but rather through the identification of activities that contribute value. Furthermore, it illustrates that achieving sustainability is unattainable without considering the equitable distribution of the consequences of an organization's actions. The research is subject to some limitations and repercussions. The study introduces an alternative framework of sustainability that highlights crucial components that are commonly overlooked, hence creating opportunities for further exploration. Practical implications: The acquisition of knowledge on the fundamental elements of sustainability can significantly enhance an organization's capacity to make strategic decisions. The paper presents a novel approach to sustainability management and explores the relationship between corporate sustainability and corporate accounting, a subject that is often overlooked.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".