The Use of Blockchains to Enhance Sustainability Reporting and Assurance*
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 The changing dynamics of the accounting profession have been strongly influenced by emerging technologies and the demand for nontraditional metrics and information by stakeholders and regulators. In this article, we perform an exploratory content analysis to examine the role that blockchain technology can play in enhancing sustainability reporting and assurance. The benefits to companies and assurance professionals in using the distributed ledger technology of blockchain are increased trust, transparency, and traceability, which matches stakeholders' demands as it relates to sustainability reporting. This article identifies and analyzes potential and current use cases of blockchain in the United States and Canada to assist accountants and auditors in preparing and reviewing sustainability information. We highlight how augmenting traditional reporting systems with blockchain can overcome problems with sustainability reporting. We discuss implications for practice in detail—finding that blockchain is well‐positioned to provide reliable tracking and custodial support as it relates to sustainability information currently being self‐reported by many firms, such as greenhouse gas emissions, conflict mineral disclosure, or product provenance, among others. Expanded adoption of blockchains by companies will lead to higher‐quality information being included in sustainability reports and allow assurance professionals to verify a wider range of information, potentially leading to uniform standards in the evaluation of sustainability reports.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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