MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378836465 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.180529

Carbon Performance, Green Strategy, Financial Performance Effect on Carbon Emissions Disclosure: Evidence from High Polluting Industry in Indonesia

2023· article· en· W4378836465 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuliana Yuliana, Linda Kusumaning Wedari

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasBusinessCarbon fibersEnvironmental economicsNatural resource economicsGreen growthEnvironmental scienceSustainable developmentEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of carbon performance, green strategy and financial performance on carbon emissions disclosure based on GRI 305: Emissions, of five polluting industrial sectors in Indonesia during period of 2017 to 2020.Factors affect carbon disclosure show conflicting results like positive, negative, and also no affect.All these findings in this paper may provide a new insight about what factor that affect pollutant industry disclose their carbon information.Pollutant industry are the main source of carbon pollution, therefore they have an important role about environment responsibility.Content analysis and OLS regression are used in the analysis, and find that green strategy and financial performance give impact on carbon emissions disclosure.However, carbon performance, does not impact on carbon emissions.It seems that companies in the polluting industrial sectors in Indonesia implement green strategy and still focuses on financial performance.Nevertheless, the carbon mitigation concern is low since there is no mandatory for Indonesian companies to measure dan report their carbon emissions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicEnergy, Environment, Economic GrowthFrench-language works237,207