Search results

The increasing responsibility of organisations towards society and the environment has inverted the relationship between accounting and accountability, leading to accountability-based accounting systems. This study aims to explore the debate on accountability for climate change within the integrating thinking (IT) perspective. Ascertaining the most significant trends in the debate around purposes and performance that characterise climate mitigation engagement and their connections, the study would explore if and to what extent organisations are tackling climate actions.

A narrative review of the extensive academic literature developed from the Kyoto Protocol to date was performed. After selecting a representative sample, papers were analysed with the support of a new analytical framework that involves three dimensions – answerability, enforcement and outcome – and governance schemes that emerge from the involvement of the private and public sector and civil society. With the support of NVivo software, themes arisen were analysed and coded. Key items were labelled, creating specific nodes and synthesised into the proposed framework.

A “silo approach” largely characterises the debate on accountability for climate change. The most significant reasons behind the shortcomings of extant climate actions may be retrieved firstly in the weakness of the motivations that guide organisations to operate in a climate-friendly way.

This study underlines the need for a 360° integrated approach for strategically tackling climate actions.

This study would represent a further step towards an integrated approach for studying organisations behaviours in the “climate war”, embracing the connectivity between purposes and outcomes, capitals and the relationships amongst the various stakeholders.

As financial firms incorporate impact strategies more extensively into their operations, they are asked to sustain their impact claims and thus face increased risks of regulatory scrutiny and lawsuits from private and public parties. The lack of reliable frameworks to measure impact gives rise to phenomena like impact washing, leading to litigations. This article aims to explore the main factors contributing to the impact litigation risk and the mechanisms employed by practitioners in the impact investing field to navigate and address this challenge.

We conducted semi-structured interviews involving three impact investors and three impact lawyers with specific knowledge of ESG and impact controversies, adopting the Gioia Methodology for the analysis. We triangulated such information with the analysis of secondary data.

The “great noise” around the impact investing world and the rise of impact washing, the lack of shared standards for measuring impacts and the misalignment of interests among actors involved in the initiatives constitute a potential “litigation bomb”. Such a scenario is detrimental to an investment strategy, which has the potential to tackle societal issues.

This study represents an initial effort to connect the academic debate on impact litigation with the expert’s active “on-field” standpoints. The identified and validated drivers of impact litigations provide valuable insight to enhance the governance and accountability of impact investing. Implementing Impact Measurement and Management (IMM) tools, participatory governance models, clear impact-focused contracts and a proactive approach could serve as prospective solutions to mitigate the risk of disputes.