MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Environmental Upgrading in the Furthest Reaches of the Global Supply Chain

2025· article· en· W4416005775 on OpenAlexaff
Li‐fang Zhang, Anthony Goerzen, Liena Kano

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental governanceCorporate governanceSustainabilityStewardship (theology)Multinational corporationSupply chainEnvironmental stewardshipSustainable development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The shortcomings in environmental stewardship within institutionally weak and socially fragile contexts, such as artisanal and small-scale mining communities (ASM), epitomize the grand challenges identified by the UN Sustainable Development Goals of providing clean water and reducing pollution. As multinational enterprises (MNE) become increasingly responsible for the entirety of their global value chains (GVC), managers become highly motivated to address these issues. However, the primary approach of using cascading compliance appears ineffective in the furthest reaches (i.e., the “first mile”) of GVCs. Therefore, we ask what alternative tactics can upgrade environmental stewardship in the first mile of GVCs that often consist of informal suppliers. Extending Kano (2018), we adopt a more inclusive approach than typically found in international business research, using a relational GVC governance lens that engages non-traditional entities, e.g., informal suppliers. Based on a rare dataset of African gold ASM and using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), we find multiple pathways to improved environmental stewardship, thereby demonstrating novel, feasible solutions to address environmental grand challenges in the furthest reaches of GVCs. By assessing an NGO’s intervention that engages informal suppliers, we demonstrate that environmental upgrading is attainable even in those challenging contexts.

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)0.003
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 score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicQualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchFrench-language works237,207