MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405196173 · doi:10.1108/ijmpb-05-2024-0107

Governance of ESG implementations: governance dimensions and their structural implementation

2024· article· en· W4405196173 on OpenAlexaff
Ralf Müller, Marie‐Andrée Caron, Nathalie Drouin, J Lereim, Раймонда Алондериене, Alfredas Chmieliauskas, Saulius Šimkonis, Raminta Šuminskienė

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Managing Projects in Business · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProject governanceCorporate governanceImplementationHierarchyMulti-level governanceInformation governanceKnowledge managementProcess managementBusinessContext (archaeology)Conceptual frameworkPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceInformation system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Managing Projects in BusinessSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207