Beyond the Financial Balance Sheet: Embracing the Triple Bottom Line for Sustainable Business Success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our decisions today are part of an economic thinking which aims to fix problems and increase the efficiency of capital markets. Our economy is still largely approached as a system which is unrelated to our environment or social returns like community well-being, social cohesion, equitable distribution of resources, etc. To fully incorporate sustainability into cost-benefit analysis, businesses need to change their financial approach, showcasing how long-term thinking impacts profits. Money's value is not static and evolves with time and technology. We propose to introduce a variation of cost/benefit and present value calculations. Precise calculations reveal the benefits of long-term strategies over short-term profit focus. As financial systems evolve and technology advances, the accurate calculation of money's time value will continue to play a crucial role in shaping economic landscapes and guiding financial choices. In this article, we demonstrate that updated calculations could be a key enabler to visualize the benefits of long-term thinking or “patient finance” as compared to a short-term focus on profit. We introduce the concept and calculation of a Present Future Value (PFV).
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".