Factors Influencing Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures in European Ports: Implications for Sustainable Investing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
European Union cargo and container ports are under pressure to reduce GHG emissions and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, as mandated by the European Commission. The pace of progress varies among ports. This study examined the characteristics influencing GHG reduction measures in European cargo and container ports and their implications for sustainable investing. The methods used in this study, such as linear regression models to analyze predictive variables, can be applied in sustainable investing to assess which factors most strongly predict a company’s environmental, social, and governance performance. Using linear regression models to analyze data from the 33 busiest European ports, we identified five predictive variables: port size, cargo mix, surrounding population density, access to the sea, and the economic wealth of the host country. Our findings revealed that the port size significantly correlates with the adoption of measures to reduce scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. This study underscores the importance of contextual and operational factors in evaluating sustainability efforts across sectors. The results contribute to drawing parallels with the field of sustainable investing within finance. This offers valuable insights for sustainable investing, emphasizing the importance of considering various contextual and operational factors when evaluating the sustainability efforts of entities in different sectors.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".