Strategic environmental costs measurement and disclosure : an Australian evidence and an international comparison with USA, EU and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates how strategic environmental costs and expenditures can be measured and disclosed as information and should be reported in the annual report of an economically sensitive corporation based on a survey conducted on top 100 companies in Australia. The results indicate that strategic environmental managers and accountants believe that environmentally induced costs and expenses should be reported as notes to financial statements, rather than only in the profit and loss statement in the corporate annual report. However, results are inconclusive as to whether certain strategic environmentally induced expenditure should be capitalized and amortized separately in the balance sheet, while there is some support environmentally induced end- of-pipe and integrated technologies being recognized separately as assets in the balance sheet. The study also found that there was a correlation between the awareness and understanding of ISO standards and this may affect decisions to employ internal environmental auditors with a knowledge and understanding of environmental management systems (EMS) audits under ISO 14000.Finally the paper investigates, through library search, the position of strategic environmental costs management and disclosure in the USA, EU, and Canada. The findings reveal that there is much awareness in reporting environmental costs in the annual report with the enactment of regulations internationally, as in Australia. But the measurement and disclosure of strategic environmental costs and expenditures is still in its infancy, as in Australia, with some improvement in Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, the USA, and Canada. The paper concludes with some recommendations for future research.
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 | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".