ArticleNature communications2026
Assessing corporate sustainability with large language models: evidence from Europe.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing corporate sustainability with large language models: evidence from Europe.Nature communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Companies play a crucial role in achieving global sustainability goals, yet evidence on their progress across environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions remains limited. We develop a machine learning framework to systematically extract ESG indicators from corporate reports. Applying this approach to annual and sustainability reports of 600 large European firms (2014-2023), we construct a dataset of 2.9 million ESG observations across environmental, social, and governance topics. We assess ESG transparency based on disclosures aligned with the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and evaluate ESG performance using extracted numerical indicators. Results reveal a pronounced transparency gap: firms in the top ESG rating decile disclose 22% more indicators than those in the bottom decile, although this gap narrows over time. Performance trends are uneven: while most social indicators remain largely stagnant, except for gains in gender equality, environmental indicators show some improvement. Reported scope 3 emissions increase sharply, largely reflecting improved disclosure. Our open-source framework enables systematic tracking of corporate ESG efforts.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.