Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dominant viewpoint in current organizational literature tends to utilize an external perspective in addressing sustainability challenges, ascribing the driving force for sustainability actions to external pressures emanating from stakeholders and regulatory bodies. While this perspective holds value, it tends to leave unnoticed some significant variations in how organizations respond to these external pressures. Specifically, it remains unclear why certain organizations demonstrate more impactful sustainability actions than others, even when equipped with similar resources and knowledge bases. This research asserts that while resources and knowledge serve as necessary prerequisites for action, they are insufficient for explaining the divergent behaviors of organizations. It is essentially the variation in motivation of the executives which creates differences in organizational sustainability behavior. To theoretically explore the impact of executives' motivation on organizational sustainability behavior, this study extends Ajzen's well-established Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Recognizing the limitations of TPB within the organizational context, a novel theoretical framework is introduced: the Theory of Planned Organizational Behavior (TPOB). This framework is employed to formulate four key propositions that expound on the interplay between executives’ sustainability worldviews, intentions, and attention, and their influence on organizational sustainability behavior. Together, these variables determine the nature of sustainability actions, categorized in this work as substantive, integrative, instrumental, or symbolic.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".