Financial and Qualitative Determinants of Voluntary Environmental/sustainability Reporting in the Canadian Mining Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ever increasing attention given to the environmental threats facing the planet have permeated almost all areas of human endeavor. Accounting and corporate reporting has not been immune to this effect and is a key area of interest. Much of the environmental damage and the public costs associated with its clean-up is a result of commercial activity. Captured under the headings of social responsibility accounting, environmental accounting, integrated reporting or sustainability accounting, there are only limited mechanisms in accounting standards that directly address environmental issues and the associated costs and benefits. The majority of reporting mechanisms over the last three decades are largely voluntary so companies can choose whether or not to provide this type of information to users of financial statements. The existing literature in this area has focused on how these disclosures (voluntary or otherwise) have affected user decision making, primarily investors and creditors, and shareholder value. What factors lead to a decision to do voluntary reporting with respect to environmental issues? This research focusses on the Canadian mining sector (exclusive of oil and gas) and examines the financial and qualitative characteristics of companies and their respective reporting methods to build a generic profile of a company that would most likely to provide such voluntary reporting. Analysis of annual reports and the associated audited financial statements of companies in the sector will provide the raw data to build this generic profile. We can infer that companies that are inclined to report on environmental issues, beyond their regulatory responsibilities, are likely to be better environmental stewards. Understanding the financial and qualitative characteristics and having a profile can aid in regulatory decision making and provide potential and current investors an additional analytical tool for assessing corporate social responsibility with regard to environmental and sustainability issues.
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 | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".