Follow the Leader: How Culture Gives Rise to a Behavioral Bias That Leads to Higher Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigates the influence of national culture, particularly power distance, on firms’ carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Drawing on a large international dataset spanning over a decade, we examine how power distance, agency conflict, and socioeconomic stability interact to shape firms’ emission decisions. Our analysis reveals a significant positive relationship between power distance and firms’ CO2 emissions, indicating that firms located in countries characterized by higher power distance tend to emit more greenhouse gases (GHGs). Furthermore, we find that agency conflict moderates this relationship, with firms experiencing high levels of debt or paying substantial dividends exhibiting lower emissions in high power distance environments. Additionally, socioeconomic stability attenuates the positive association between power distance and emissions, suggesting that the effectiveness of cultural influences on emission decisions is contingent upon the stability of the societal context. These findings underscore the importance of considering cultural dimensions, agency dynamics, and socioeconomic conditions in understanding corporate environmental behavior. Our research contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence of the nuanced interplay between national culture, agency conflict, and socioeconomic stability in shaping firms’ emission decisions. Policymakers and practitioners can use these insights to develop more targeted environmental policies and strategies aimed at promoting sustainable development globally.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".