The Moderating Role of Finance, Accounting, and Digital Disruption in ESG, Financial Reporting, and Auditing: A Triple-Helix Perspective
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
This study investigates the moderating role of finance, accounting, and digital disruption (FADD) in the relationship between auditing and sustainability (AS) and financial reporting and ESG integration (FRESGI) through the triple-helix perspective. Drawing on data from 200 experts across corporate, academic, and governmental sectors in Kosovo (2024–Q1 2025), the research applied advanced statistical techniques, including EFA, CFA, and moderation analysis using SPSS and AMOS, to explore both direct and interaction effects. The results reveal that FADD significantly enhances ESG integration, with strong direct effects observed in the corporate sector (β = 0.259, p < 0.001) and public institutions (β = 0.281, p < 0.001). However, the moderation analysis shows that the government dimension of FADD (FADD_2) negatively influences the relationship between corporate sustainability practices (AS_1) and ESG reporting, indicating limited coordination across sectors. These findings highlight the need for aligned, sector-specific strategies that harness digital innovation and financial transformation to strengthen sustainable auditing and reporting practices. This study provides actionable insights for policymakers, practitioners, and academics working to advance ESG integration across complex institutional ecosystems.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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