Search results

The purpose of this paper is to make sense of the tensions and contradictions between different conceptions of the meaning of carbon accounting.

The paper draws on theories of framing to help explain the divergent understandings and practices currently encompassed by the term “carbon accounting”. The empirical core of the paper is based on a review of the literature and illustrated through examples of some of the contemporary problems in carbon accounting.

Tensions and contradictions in carbon accounting can be understood as the result of “collisions” between at least five overlapping frames of reference, namely physical, political, market‐enabling, financial and social/environmental modes of carbon accounting.

Unresolved tensions in carbon accounting can undermine confidence in climate science, policies, markets and reporting, thereby ultimately discouraging action to mitigate climate change. Understanding this problem can contribute to finding practical solutions.

The paper makes three distinct contributions to the emerging theoretical literature on carbon accounting. First, it provides a unique “unpacked” definition of carbon accounting that attempts to represent the contemporary range of meanings encompassed by the term. Second, it demonstrates how social science ideas about framing can help explain why definitions and understandings of carbon accounting vary. Third, by making the interactions between different forms of carbon accounting explicit through the metaphor of colliding frames of reference, the origins of some of the contemporary intractable issues in carbon accounting can be better understood.

This paper aims to set out several of the key issues and areas of the inter‐disciplinary field of climate change research based in accounting and accountability, and to introduce the papers that compose this AAAJ special issue.

The paper provides an overview of issues in the science of climate, as well as an eclectic collection of independent and inter‐disciplinary contributions to accounting for climate change. Through additional accounting analysis, and a shadow carbon account, it also illustrates how organisations and nations account for and communicate their greenhouse gas (GHG) footprints and emissions behaviour.

The research shows that accounting for carbon and other GHG emissions is immensely challenging because of uncertainties in estimation methods. The research also shows the enormity of the challenge associated with reducing those emissions in the near future.

The paper surveys past work on a wide variety of perspectives associated with climate change science, politics and policy, as well as organisational and national emissions and accounting behaviour. It provides an overview of challenges in the area, and seeks to set an agenda for future research that remains interesting and different.

This paper aims to explore the disclosure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by megacities. Three dimensions were considered. First, what communication channels are used by world megacities to disclose their emissions reduction target (ERT) and emissions reduction actions (ERA)? Second, the consistency of disclosed ERT and ERA across different channels. Third, the quality of the disclosed ERA in different channels.

Ten megacities selected for review were in Australia, Europe, the USA, the UK and South Africa. First, ERT and ERA information was searched in different disclosure media to identify the common communication channels used by the megacities. Second, the documentary analysis was undertaken to assess the consistency of reported ERT and ERA information across the identified channels. Third, a scoring system was developed and applied to evaluate the quality of the disclosed ERA information, based on the extent to which megacities provided descriptions of emission reduction actions and reported the impact of the actions and the cost to implement them.

Megacities primarily used third-party channels and their channels to disclose ERT- and ERA-related information. Social media use to provide climate change information is also growing. The study also finds that ERT information is consistent between third-party channels and megacities’ channels. However, around half of the disclosed ERA between third-party and megacities’ channels are not consistent. Quality assessment for the disclosed ERA in different channels shows that megacities have provided limited information regarding the impacts and the cost of their ERA, which raises a question about the usefulness of disclosure.

The findings are important for policymakers and city officials designing cities’ GHG reporting standards and developing policies for programs to reduce emissions. Also, for stakeholders’ understanding of cities’ commitment and actions to reduce emissions, as well as the impact of their actions, and for managers responsible for measuring, reporting and mitigating emissions from current and future actions.

Prior studies primarily focused on corporate greenhouse emissions disclosure to the carbon disclosure project, whereas this paper examines emissions disclosure at the geographic level. Moreover, prior studies of the public sector focused on the scope of climate change disclosure but did not evaluate the consistency and quality of the disclosure. However, this study explores three different disclosure channels and assesses consistency and quality. A further novel aspect of the study is its focus on the disclosure of emissions reduction targets and actions.

This study aims to analyze the firm- and country-related determinants and consequences on the firm value of the non-carbon-related environmental goals of the EU Taxonomy Regulation and the new European Sustainability Reporting Standards. In contrast to prior research on either total environmental or explicit carbon proxies, this work focuses on emissions, biodiversity, resource use/circular economy and water-related measures.

Based on legitimacy theory, a structured literature review drawing from 80 peer-reviewed empirical-quantitative studies was presented. As the primary contributors to environmental subitems, the results related to corporate and country governance and financial and sustainability determinants were highlighted. In alignment with the business case argument, the influence of environmental outputs on accounting- and market-based financial performance and other relevant firm proxies was focused.

Most included variables show rather inclusive significant results. However, the results clearly suggest that board gender diversity has a positive impact on environmental outputs, particularly in relation to emissions reductions and resource use efficiency/circular economy performance.

This study mainly contributes to the growing literature on corporate environmental reporting and performance. Future research should analyze related subpillars in more detail and the impact of sustainable corporate governance on these dimensions.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first empirical study on environmental performance and reporting based on the environmental topics of the EU Taxonomy Regulation.