Motivating Corporate Sustainability Research in Management Accounting Through the Lens of Paradox Theory*
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 Organizational leaders identify corporate sustainability as a complicated and urgent business imperative that their organizations face. The management accountant's role is to help develop accounting systems to measure and report corporate sustainability, yet several factors contribute to the contemporary management accountant's challenges in satisfying stakeholder demands to integrate sustainability into their practices and operations. Like sustainability, the tenets of paradox theory revolve around salient interdependent tensions with contradictions that persist across time. Therefore, I propose paradox theory as an alternative to the business case framing that currently dominates sustainability decision‐making. In this paper, I synthesize the existing literature at the intersection of management accounting, corporate sustainability, and paradox theory. My research also unearths a new paradox, one currently absent from the literature: the corporate sustainability temporal paradox. Finally, I offer a set of theory‐based research questions geared toward moving beyond business case thinking in accounting corporate sustainability research.
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 | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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