Search results
1 – 2 of 2Anna Young-Ferris, Arunima Malik, Victoria Calderbank and Jubin Jacob-John
Avoided emissions refer to greenhouse gas emission reductions that are a result of using a product or are emission removals due to a decision or an action. Although there is no…
Abstract
Purpose
Avoided emissions refer to greenhouse gas emission reductions that are a result of using a product or are emission removals due to a decision or an action. Although there is no uniform standard for calculating avoided emissions, market actors have started referring to avoided emissions as “Scope 4” emissions. By default, making a claim about Scope 4 emissions gives an appearance that this Scope of emissions is a natural extension of the existing and accepted Scope-based emissions accounting framework. The purpose of this study is to explore the implications of this assumed legitimacy.
Design/methodology/approach
Via a desktop review and interviews, we analyse extant Scope 4 company reporting, associated accounting methodologies and the practical implications of Scope 4 claims.
Findings
Upon examination of Scope 4 emissions and their relationship with Scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions, we highlight a dynamic and interdependent relationship between quantification, commensuration and standardization in emissions accounting. We find that extant Scope 4 assessments do not fit the established framework for Scope-based emissions accounting. In line with literature on the territorializing nature of accounting, we call for caution about Scope 4 claims that are a distraction from the critical work of reducing absolute emissions.
Originality/value
We examine the implications of assumed alignment and borrowed legitimacy of Scope 4 with Scope-based accounting because Scope 4 is not an actual Scope, but a claim to a Scope. This is as an act of accounting territorialization.
Details
Keywords
Frank Ato Ghansah and Weisheng Lu
While COVID-19 mitigation measures (CMMs) aided in steady recovery during the pandemic, they also impeded movement across economies/borders, affecting quality assurance (QA) of…
Abstract
Purpose
While COVID-19 mitigation measures (CMMs) aided in steady recovery during the pandemic, they also impeded movement across economies/borders, affecting quality assurance (QA) of Cross-border Construction Logistics and Supply Chain (Cb-CLSC). However, prior studies on the pandemic in the construction project industry have not revealed how CMMs have impacted QA. Thus, this study aims to evaluate the impact of the CMMs on the QA of Cb-CLSC.
Design/methodology/approach
This is achieved by adopting an embedded mixed-method approach involving a desk literature review and engaging 150 experts from different economies across the globe using expert surveys, and results verified via semi-structured expert interviews. Structural equation modelling-based multiple regression analysis (SEM-MRA) was integrated to examine the impact of the CMMs on the QA, along with descriptive and content analysis.
Findings
The study confirmed that CMMs have not only impacted the QA negatively but also influenced the positioning of the QA for the post-pandemic era and probably to survive the risks of future pandemics. Among all the identified CMMs, the top three critical measures include “lockdown (CMM2)”, “use of personal protective equipment, such as nose masks, disinfects, etc. (CMM5)”, and “electronic/virtual meetings (CMM7)”. However, CMM5 possesses the highest contributory power to form CMM in impacting the QA, and this can be regarded as largely positive by strengthening health and safety management systems. Its negative impact lies with the project cost increment and the inconveniences of using nose and face masks.
Practical implications
This study provides a better understanding to construction practitioners and policy makers on how the pandemic policies, i.e. CMMs, have impacted QA and can aid in formulating planning and operational decisions to adequately position the QA for the post-pandemic era and to endure the risks of future pandemics.
Originality/value
The study contributes to knowledge in that it provides a better understanding of how the pandemic policies, such as CMMs, have impacted QA and can aid in formulating planning and operational decisions to adequately position the QA for the post-pandemic era and to endure the risks of future pandemics. This area of study has been given limited attention among prior studies during the pandemic.
Details