Search results

This investigation/report/reflection was motivated largely by the occasion of the first Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research (CSEAR) “Summer School” in North America.¹ But its roots reach down as well to other recent reflection/investigation pieces, in particular, Mathews (1997), Gray (2002, 2006), and Deegan and Soltys (2007). The last of these authors note (p. 82) that CSEAR Summer Schools were initiated in Australasia, at least partly as a means to spur interest and activity in social and environmental accounting (SEA) research. So, too, was the first North American CSEAR Summer School.² We believe, therefore, that it is worthwhile to attempt in some way to identify where SEA currently stands as a field of interest within the broader academic accounting domain in Canada and the United States.³ As well, however, we believe this is a meaningful time for integrating our views on the future of our chosen academic sub-discipline with those of Gray (2002), Deegan and Soltys (2007), and others. Thus, as the title suggests, we seek to identify (1) who the SEA researchers in North America are; (2) the degree to which North American–based accounting research journals publish SEA-related research; and (3) where we, the SEA sub-discipline within North America, might be headed. We begin with the who.

Sustainability is a word that is included often in the current lexicon. In the academic world, the American Accounting Association devoted a plenary session to sustainability accounting in its 2009 annual meeting and the theme of the 2009 Academy of Management meeting was also on green management and sustainability. Many MBA programs have developed a special track focusing on sustainability, which suggests that there is some demand for the graduates of programs specializing in environmental issues. Is this all a fad and just rhetoric or will this emphasis on sustainability lead to discussions, plans, and programs that will be helpful in saving the planet?

This chapter evaluates whether disclosures on global warming by companies from the European Union are more extensive than disclosures by Japanese and Canadian firms. The study is based on disclosures made on websites, annual reports, social, environmental and sustainability reports and on a questionnaire developed by the Carbon Disclosure Project by 282 of the largest firms from these countries. Content analysis is utilized to asses their disclosures. The results indicate that the EU firms make significantly less global warming disclosures than firms from Japan or Canada. We also find no relation between the changes in carbon emissions and global warming disclosures indicating that these disclosures do not truly reflect emission performance. These findings suggest that the EU requirements of reducing GHG pollution have not improved GHG disclosures. Regulatory disclosure requirements may be the answer to improve disclosures.

Since the publication of the first volume in this series in 2000, there have been advances as well as retreats in the areas of both environmental performance and environmental disclosures. The Kyoto Protocol will become reality if 55 nations and the industrialized nations that produce at least 55% of the world’s output of carbon dioxide ratify the treaty. With the European Union’s ratification in 2002 and with Russia and Canada poised to ratify the treaty, the Kyoto Protocol is expected to become effective shortly. Even without the treaty being in effect, the EU countries have instituted a carbon dioxide trading scheme to limit the emission of greenhouse gases. These endeavors constitute progress toward making the contents of the Kyoto Protocol effective. In the U.S., the Bush administration’s choice of ignoring Kyoto and relaxing the requirements of certain environmental laws, however, constitute steps backwards in the battle to keep the planet clean and safe for future generations.