The role of Social Accounting in the light of the SDGS: theoretical considerations and critical reflections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In September 2015, more than 150 leaders from different nations of the world met at the United Nations headquarters and approved the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Essential elements of the Agenda are the 17 objectives, ie the "Sustainable Development Goals" (hereinafter SDGs). This work focuses on the role and potential that social accounting can have in achieving and implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. In particular, it is proposed to change the focus of the reporting process from the centrality of the body (company, public body or third sector) to the broader one relating to the various issues that concern its activity, with specific reference to the SDGs. This last, on the one hand they concern specific objectives and on the other they show a great and essential interdependence between them. With the following analysis, we want to propose a "new" vision of social accounting in the light of three fundamental elements-guidelines that are present in the 2030 Agenda, namely universality, interconnection and inclusion. Specifically, "pro-SDGs Accounting" (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018), with the characteristics that will be outlined and thanks to its inclusive potential, can be used not only within the company, but also in government bodies, in local communities and in the third sector, also adapting to the various socio-economic-environmental contexts. we want to propose a "new" vision of social accounting in the light of three fundamental elements-guidelines that are present in the 2030 Agenda, namely universality, interconnection and inclusion. Specifically, "pro-SDGs Accounting" (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018), with the characteristics that will be outlined and thanks to its inclusive potential, can be used not only within the company, but also in government bodies, in local communities and in the third sector, also adapting to the various socio-economic-environmental contexts. we want to propose a "new" vision of social accounting in the light of three fundamental elements-guidelines that are present in the 2030 Agenda, namely universality, interconnection and inclusion. Specifically, "pro-SDGs Accounting" (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018), with the characteristics that will be outlined and thanks to its inclusive potential, can be used not only within the company, but also in government bodies, in local communities and in the third sector, also adapting to the various socio-economic-environmental contexts.
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 | 0.054 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.126 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| 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".