Governance of ESG implementations: governance dimensions and their structural implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study identifies the various governance dimensions for environmental, social and governance (ESG) implementations, including reporting. Subsequently, it investigates the governance structures in place to steer these dimensions in project-based and project-oriented organizations. Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature review identifies 11 organizational governance dimensions for ESG implementations, followed by a conceptual mapping of these dimensions to the most likely governance structures being set up for their implementation (i.e. single-level, multi-level and polycentric governance). Findings Eleven governance dimensions are identified and categorized under (1) organizational settings, (2) ESG strategy and (3) implementation. The conceptual mapping of these dimensions against the governance structures for their implementation identifies an inverse relationship between the governance level in the organizational hierarchy and the complexity of governance structures needed for steering these dimensions. The paper suggests a variety of context-dependent governance structures and contributes to the governance literature on the interface between projects and their parent organizations. Research limitations/implications Academics benefit from an organization-wide model and the first taxonomy on the relevant governance dimensions for ESG implementation and reporting projects, thus a first approach to theorizing the governance of ESG implementations. Practical implications The results are of value for practitioners by allowing them to understand the diversity of dimensions and the structural implementation of ESG and its reporting. Social implications One of the first studies to address governance of ESG implementation and reporting across intra-organizational boundaries between the permanent and the project-based parts of the organization. This provides for organization-wide improvements in the governance toward the UN Sustainability Goals. Originality/value The paper investigates the under-researched link of governance implementations from the corporate level to individual projects in the context of ESG implementations, including reporting.
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 | 0.031 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".