The Heritage Sustainability Index: A Tool to Benchmark Corporate Safeguard Policies and Practices for the Protection of Cultural Heritage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the Heritage Sustainability Index (HSI), a benchmarking tool that draws on a series of key indicators to rate company actions as they relate to the protection of cultural heritage. The purpose of the HSI is to provide an independent framework for lenders, borrowers, and civil society, including Indigenous Peoples, to evaluate corporate safeguard policies and practices related to cultural heritage, enabling informed decision making. Given their importance and influence, the HSI focuses on the practices of Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs), which were chosen to represent a baseline for comparison across all industry sectors. The HSI’s indicators (n = 12) and sub-indicators (n = 48) were successful in illustrating the variability that exists among the G-SIBs. Corporations with an HSI value below the upper quartile of the distribution should take steps to enhance their cultural heritage safeguard practices. This is crucial because scores below this value reflect weak practices, indicating higher financial and reputational risk exposures and poor outcomes for cultural heritage. By focusing on improving their HSI values, these corporations can better mitigate potential risks and enhance their overall sustainability profile. The success and longevity of the HSI will depend on industry goodwill and the perceived risk that cultural heritage poses to corporate financial performance and reputation. Given the potential financial and reputational damage from a significant failure in cultural heritage stewardship, corporations are expected to recognize these advantages and find it an easy decision to support the adoption of the HSI.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".