Search results

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.

The purpose of this paper is to consider hierarchical control as a mode of governance, and analyses the extent of control exhibited by central government over local government through the best value (BV) and comprehensive performance assessment (CPA) performance regimes.

This paper utilises Ouchi's framework and, specifically, his articulation of bureaucratic or hierarchical control in the move towards achievement of organisational objectives. Hierarchical control may be inferred from the extent of “command and control” by Central Government, use of rewards and sanctions, and alignment to government priorities and discrimination of performance.

CPA represents a more sophisticated performance regime than BV in the governance of local authorities by central government. In comparison to BV, CPA involved less scope for dialogue with local government prior to introduction, closer inspection of and direction of support toward poorer performing authorities, and more alignment to government priorities in the weightings attached to service blocks.

The paper focuses upon the hierarchic/bureaucratic mode of governance as articulated by Ouchi and expands on this mode in order to analyse shifts in performance regimes in the public sector.

This paper aims to consider how climate change performance is measured and accounted for within the performance framework for local authority areas in England adopted in 2008. It critically evaluates the design of two mitigation and one adaptation indicators that are most relevant to climate change. Further, the potential for these performance indicators to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation is discussed.

The authors begin by examining the importance of the performance framework and the related Local Area Agreements (LAAs), which were negotiated for all local areas in England between central government and Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs). This development is located within the broader literature relating to new public management. The potential for this framework to assist in delivering the UK's climate change policy objectives is researched in a two‐stage process. First, government publications and all 150 LAAs were analysed to identify the level of priority given to the climate change indicators. Second, interviews were conducted in spring 2009 with civil servants and local authority officials from the English West Midlands who were engaged in negotiating the climate change content of the LAAs.

Nationally, the authors find that 97 per cent of LAAs included at least one climate change indicator as a priority. The indicators themselves, however, are perceived to be problematic – in terms of appropriateness, accuracy and timeliness. In addition, concerns were identified about the level of local control over the drivers of climate change performance and, therefore, a question is raised as to how LSPs can be held accountable for this. On a more positive note, for those concerned about climate change, the authors do find evidence that the inclusion of these indicators within the performance framework has helped to move climate change up the agenda for local authorities and their partners. However, actions by the UK's new coalition government to abolish the national performance framework and substantially reduce public expenditure potentially threaten this advance.

This paper offers an insight into a new development for measuring climate change performance at a local level, which is relatively under‐researched. It also contributes to knowledge of accountability within a local government setting and provides a reference point for further research into the potential role of local actions to address the issue of climate change.

A fully functioning carbon accounting system must be based on measurement that is materially accurate, consistent over space and time, and incorporates data uncertainty. However, achieving these goals is difficult because current carbon accounting efforts are spread across three distinct organisational fields, each prioritising different goals. This paper aims to address these issues.

The authors identified three fields drawn together by the science of how carbon emissions can be measured, the social practices of carbon accounting, and accountability within the global carbon governance system. The authors hosted a workshop, and invited representatives participating in each of the organisational fields to highlight the contentious conversations within their field. The authors facilitated an across‐field exploration of whether and how to achieve accuracy, consistency and certainty in carbon accounting.

It was found that there are tensions between accuracy, consistency and certainty in carbon accounting both within and across organisational fields. Framing the evolution of carbon accounting as negotiation between these goals across fields yields powerful implications for addressing current challenges in carbon accounting.

The authors provide guidance to policymakers on how to recognise legitimate uncertainty in carbon management science, manage the cost‐benefits of policy and reporting mechanisms, and ensure actual greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

This paper exploits the unusual approach of integrating carbon accounting across levels of analysis, from the molecular level through processes, organisations, industries and nations. This approach should help scientific, corporate and policy decision‐makers move towards a more fully functioning carbon accounting system.

This paper aims to carry out a critical analysis of the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme (ETS) as a complex market solution to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs). Specifically it seeks to examine the financial regulatory infrastructure that will more than likely oversee the Australian ETS, the same regulatory infrastructure which failed to prevent the global financial crisis.

A critical examination of the financialisation of the atmosphere that follows the growth of the financialisation of capitalism when economic activity shifted from production and service sectors to finance. Financialisation of capitalism is supported by capitalist regulation influenced by neo‐liberal doctrines of free markets and small government.

Trillions of dollars of taxpayer funds bailed out large financial institutions that nearly collapsed after unregulated trading in complex financial products that were supposed to hedge future risk. Corporate emissions trading will involve similar financial products. The measurement and reporting of actual emissions to support the Australian ETS also creates challenges for the accountancy profession to provide a workable conceptual framework.

If the currently flawed financial infrastructure required for the GHG emissions trading scheme, no amount of taxpayer funded bailouts will reverse the extreme climate change associated with an environmental catastrophe.

The application of financialisation of monopoly capitalism and capitalist regulation theories to the critical analysis of commoditised GHGs traded as financial products in the proposed Australian ETS.

This study seeks to extend knowledge of care pathways through describing the conception and development of them within a children’s hospital. The care pathway was conceived by the nurse manager as a tool to improve care to children with minor injuries, and to their families. More specifically, it was developed as a tool to multi‐skill experienced nurses in a children’s emergency department to assess and treat children with minor injuries. It is argued that the conception of care pathways aligned with the purposes of the manager, and integrated rather than reflected national NHS policies. Prospective managers are not confined to developing care pathways as prescribed; the care pathway tool may be used for varying management initiatives.

This paper has two main purposes. First, it considers the detrimental effects of four politically‐salient asymmetries on the policy choices of liberal democracies when dealing with the problem of human‐induced climate change. Second, it outlines and evaluates possible solutions for reducing or countering these asymmetries.

The approach involves an analysis and evaluation of policy options based on a survey of the relevant literature.

The paper highlights the serious mismatch between the magnitude and urgency of the climate change problem and the current political will to overcome or mitigate the problem. Although four categories of potential solutions, and the various mechanisms through which they might operate, are discussed, it is recognized that all the available options have significant drawbacks, not least limited political feasibility and doubtful effectiveness. In short, action within liberal democracies to mitigate climate change is likely to remain seriously constrained by the four asymmetries discussed, thus increasing the risk of dangerous climate change.

The paper highlights the complexities, both international and national, of confronting human‐induced climate change. In particular, it identifies four systemic reasons, in the form of politically‐salient asymmetries, why liberal democracies have struggled to take effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provides a systematic assessment of possible solutions to these asymmetries. These include changes to accounting frameworks to ensure that the impact of humanity on the environment and future generations is more transparent.

This paper aims to explore the nature of the emerging discourse of private climate change reporting, which takes place in one‐on‐one meetings between institutional investors and their investee companies.

Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with representatives from 20 UK investment institutions to derive data which was then coded and analysed, in order to derive a picture of the emerging discourse of private climate change reporting, using an interpretive methodological approach, in addition to explorative analysis using NVivo software.

The authors find that private climate change reporting is dominated by a discourse of risk and risk management. This emerging risk discourse derives from institutional investors' belief that climate change represents a material risk, that it is the most salient sustainability issue, and that their clients require them to manage climate change‐related risk within their portfolio investment. It is found that institutional investors are using the private reporting process to compensate for the acknowledged inadequacies of public climate change reporting. Contrary to evidence indicating corporate capture of public sustainability reporting, these findings suggest that the emerging private climate change reporting discourse is being captured by the institutional investment community. There is also evidence of an emerging discourse of opportunity in private climate change reporting as the institutional investors are increasingly aware of a range of ways in which climate change presents material opportunities for their investee companies to exploit. Lastly, the authors find an absence of any ethical discourse, such that private climate change reporting reinforces rather than challenges the “business case” status quo.

Although there is a wealth of sustainability reporting research, there is no academic research on private climate change reporting. This paper attempts to fill this gap by providing rich interview evidence regarding the nature of the emerging private climate change reporting discourse.

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.