Search results

The environmental consequences of international trade and transport have gained importance as a result of the current climate debate. Products are increasingly being produced in one part of the world, transported to another country and then redistributed to their final country of consumption. Since more than 80% of world trade tonnage measured in metric tons is carried by seagoing vessels, maritime transport will continue to be a core part of most supply chains while rail and road mainly are used for hinterland transport and to and from ports. This chapter presents a methodology for assessing the environmental impact of maritime transport and transport in general, with a specific focus on greenhouse gas emissions. The first section gives an introduction to why Green Maritime Logistics and Sustainability are important topics, while the second offers a framework for measuring greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) for transport systems. The third section presents a model for measuring seaborne transport and its greenhouse gas emissions, and in the fourth section we compare greenhouse gas emissions from different modes of transportation.

In the 1930s, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were developed as safe, non-reactive alternatives to toxic and explosive refrigerants and propellants such as ammonia, chloromethane, and sulfur dioxide. American engineer Thomas Midgley famously demonstrated these properties by inhaling Freon (CFC-12) and blowing out a candle with it. He was presented with many awards for his discoveries, such as the Perkin, Priestley, and William Gibbs medals. In today's jargon, CFCs might have been called an eco-innovation, because they provided solutions to several environmental issues. However, CFCs solved environmental problems by creating others. In 1974, Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina published their pathbreaking research that demonstrated CFCs were depleting the ozone layer. In 1989, the Montreal Protocol, which regulates a global phaseout of CFCs, entered into force. A few years later, in 1995, Rowland and Molina received the Nobel Price in Chemistry. The new substitutes for CFCs, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), have no known effects on the ozone layer but are extremely potent greenhouse gases (GHGs) and thus subject to the Kyoto Protocol.

We examine the effect of firm ownership status on three environmentally relevant variables: energy efficiency, toxic emissions, and spending on pollution abatement. Prior research has demonstrated that public firms invest less than private firms and suggests this difference is due pressure from investors to strongly favor short over long-term earnings. We extend this logic to other firm behavior, examining whether publicly owned facilities invest in energy efficiency and pollution reduction differently than privately owned facilities. Using data from the US Census of Manufactures from 1980 to 2009, information on pollution from the Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) and pollution abatement spending from the Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures survey, we find that facilities switching to public ownership are less energy efficient and spend less on pollution abatement than their privately owned counterparts. However, we also find that facilities switching to public ownership have lower toxic emissions than other facilities. We also examine how different sources of external pressures alter these results and find that increased regulatory scrutiny is correlated with increased energy efficiency, toxic emissions, and abatement spending. More concentrated institutional ownership in public firms is associated with lower energy efficiency as is a greater brand focus. These latter results are broadly consistent with the idea that publicly owned firms respond to pressures from investors with a reduced focus on environmentally relevant variables. However, since facilities switching to public ownership have lower toxic emissions, this suggests that there are two competing pressures in publicly owned facilities: cost pressures, consistent with lowered energy efficiency, and public perceptions, consistent with lower toxic emissions, particularly since TRI data became available. In this sense, the combination of ownership and transparency of information appears to influence how firms prioritize different stakeholders.

Purpose – The accounting literature has demonstrated increased concern over issues of sustainability. One of the most critical issues that corporations face at the moment is climate change. This especially concerns companies that are substantial consumers of materials and energy. Corporations have increasingly acknowledged that to address this issue the existing ways of managing business must be changed.

This study examines the challenges posed by measurement of energy efficiency performance in an energy-intensive industry. It covers the challenges encountered with respect to the energy efficiency indicator and its use as a management tool.

Methodology – The case study method was used to conduct the research, which took place in a single firm in an energy-intensive process industry.

Findings – The results indicate that the current energy efficiency indicator, specific energy consumption (SEC), does not meet the criteria for good performance measurement. In particular, the controllability of energy efficiency seems problematic. Another major challenge is target setting. Measurable targets are needed to identify and prioritise areas where consumption and emission can be reduced.

Practical implications – The study provides practical knowledge on what is happening in organisations that pursue sustainable development and in particular, environmental efficiency.

Originality/value – Although the conceptual challenges in energy efficiency measurement are well known in the technical literature, discussions dealing with its management have been few in number. This study is a cross-disciplinary work and combines technical energy efficiency literature and management accounting research on performance management.

As cable and satellite industry undergoes transformation in the 21st century with the onslaught of innovation-driven changes, it is important to know which company is doing better and which company is falling behind. This study compares the relative performance of eight cable companies using three factors: operating expense for every dollar of operating revenue, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, and return on assets. We also evaluate the performance of each firm against itself for the period 2010–2013 to see if they show improvement or deterioration in operating efficiency.