Strategy Can No Longer Ignore Planetary Boundaries: A Call for Tackling Strategy's Ecological Fallacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The field of Strategy has its origins in Business Policy, which emphasized how firms could pursue important social aims that individuals and governments could not pursue otherwise. This emphasis shifted in the 1970s as the field turned towards economics for insights. Strategy scholars began to address how market‐ and industry‐level considerations, such as performance, price, and competition, were pursued by firms. By applying macro‐level principles and assumptions analogically to a more micro‐level of analysis, strategy scholars inadvertently committed what statisticians call an ecological fallacy. Educators and scholars in the field of Strategy started to accept the constructive consequences of growth, not only for the economy, but for every firm, without considering the implications for society and the natural environment. In so doing, Strategy scholarship inadvertently undermined its very ambition to advance social aims. Our Point advocates for reconsideration of the field's foundations so as to remediate the ecological fallacy and to address the climate and biodiversity crises. The goal is to offer a brighter and more relevant future for our discipline.
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 | 0.044 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.106 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".