MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382203656 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.180628

Factors Influencing Carbon Management Accounting Adoption in Indonesia

2023· article· en· W4382203656 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tommy Andrian, Etty Murwaningsari, Yvonne Augustine Sudibyo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Social Reporting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessAccountingCarbon accountingManagement accountingNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningGreenhouse gasEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to analyze the effects of green strategy, green social capital, and environmental consciousness on carbon management accounting adoption with green culture as a moderating variable.The study uses a quantitative approach by distributing questionnaires to 340 respondents in middle-up management positions in listed and non-listed companies on the Indonesian Stock Exchange.Multiple linear regression analysis was used with the Smart PLS & SPSS statistical tool.This research shows that green strategy has a significant positive effect and green social capital has a significant positive effect on carbon management accounting adoption.Meanwhile, environmental consciousness has no significant effect and green culture cannot moderate the relationship between green strategy, green social capital, and environmental consciousness on carbon management accounting adoption.The contribution of this research provides four new dimensions and 17 new indicators in measuring the adoption of carbon management accounting according to the Indonesian context.Also, this proves that carbon management accounting adoption needs to be supported by the implementation of a green strategy and the development of human resources who are always willing to share knowledge related to climate change issues as evidence to stakeholders of the efforts of corporations to support reducing greenhouse gas 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicIslamic Social ReportingFrench-language works237,207