Does Blockchain Help Make the World Better? Analyzing the Effect of Blockchain Adoption on Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance of Firms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Blockchain technology (BCT) use has been touted to have many corporate benefits including enhancing sustainability. However, there is limited understanding of whether and how it can help achieve sustainability outcomes, particularly along environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions. Based on a sample of 6,063 firm-year observations, we find that a firm’s BCT adoption leads to a 4.62 percent increase in the firm’s ESG performance compared to those that do not adopt BCT, underscoring its sustainability practices. In addition, firms with ESG-focused BCT adoption exert a 7.62 percent increase in ESG performance compared to firms that use BCT without necessarily that focus. Our results are also robust to difference-in-differences (DiD) and dynamic analyses, alternative sample specifications, and different dependent variable specifications. Overall, we provide novel empirical evidence to justify characterizing blockchain as an impactive technology for sustainability. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it