Sustainable development and First Nations values: a multidimensional accounting approach for mining proposals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which using accounting as a multidimensional practice that encompasses technical, social and moral dimensions facilitates the instigation and advancement of a culture of sustainable development. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative approach was used to analyse the case of Waratah Coal Pty Ltd vs Youth Verdict Ltd – a dispute over a lease to establish a coal mine. The study draws on Carnegie et al.’s (2021a, 2021b) multidimensional definition of accounting and the Carnegie et al.’s (2023) framework for analysis to explore how different parties drew on accounting concepts to support their position over the sustainability of the mining lease proposal. Findings A multidimensional perspective on accounting appears to have clear transformative potential and can be used to champion a culture of sustainable development. This approach also has broad societal, environmental and moral implications that transcend Western financial metrics. This study shows that relying solely on accounting as a technical practice to pursue economic benefits can result in contested arguments. Overall, this analysis illustrates how the wider public, and notably First Nations communities, might challenge accounting methodologies that marginalise cultural and social narratives. Originality/value This paper expands accounting research by demonstrating how fully embracing accounting’s capacities can create a space for hearing multiple voices, including those silenced by Western accounting practices. Specifically, this study presents a unique case in which the authors incorporate the voices and views of those affected by accounting-based decisions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".