Threshold concepts and ESG performance: teaching accounting students reconceptualized fundamentals to drive future ESG advocacy
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
Whether corporations voluntarily reduce their negative impacts on the environment and society depends upon management advocacy. As future corporate leaders, accounting students will have a critical advocacy role, but they have been taught that shareholder value should not be sacrificed to reduce the externalized environmental and social costs caused by corporations. We believe accounting students are unable to break through the shareholder value maximization doctrine without understanding threshold concepts of corporate externalized costs and revised conceptualizations of corporate ownership and corporate governance. This paper proposes a new Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Learning Model that accounting instructors can employ to understand the threshold concepts. Threshold concepts are reconstitutive and fundamentally change students’ worldviews so that new understandings may emerge and advocating for ESG initiatives becomes possible. The paper concludes with instructional strategies aligned with three pedagogical modalities to help students absorb the ESG threshold concepts.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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