Co-designing ESG Platform Functionality: A Digital Platform Ecosystem Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG), has captivated the attention of firms and academics, driven by an EU directive for firms to report ESG.Digital platforms fulfill an essential role to support organizations to manage their ESG initiatives.Since ESG disclosure standards are ambiguous, designing a digital platform for ESG is challenging.The design of ESG platform functionality is hindered as essential knowledge is fragmented across various stakeholders.In this paper, we show how a platform owner, complementor, and platform user co-design ESG platform module features by applying an ecosystem approach.Situated in a sociotechnical context, we apply Action Based Research (ADR) that includes a cyclic process of design iterations in an actual real-life setting.We identified ten challenges that may occur in the design process, and we explain which strategies have been applied to overcome the challenges.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".