Author
Listed:
- Soheil Kazemian
- Hadrian Geri Djajadikerta
- Terri Trireksani
- Kazi Sohag
- Zuraidah Mohd Sanusi
- Jamaliah Said
Abstract
Purpose - This study aims to evaluate the practices of carbon management accounting (CMA) made by companies committed to sustainability in Australia’s four highest carbon-emitting industries, including electricity, transport, stationary energy and agriculture. The evaluation covers three CMA phases (i.e. data collection, interpretation and reporting). Design/methodology/approach - This is a cross-sectional study using descriptive research. Data was collected using a questionnaire primarily derived from Burrittet al.’s (2002, 2011) CMA framework and suggestions from other references. The questionnaire includes a set of closed- and open-ended questions. Data was collected from 39 senior managers in the selected industries with direct knowledge and experience in their companies’ CMA practices. Findings - The respondents disclose numerous different motivations for their companies to practise CMA and various ways of practising their CMA. This reflects diverse industry practices due to the absence of a generally accepted standard and different stages of organisational learning. The findings also show that the respondents perceived CMA practices as essential to enhancing their companies’ sustainability performance and overall reputation. However, the majority of the respondents showed little appetite for carbon emission disclosure. Practical implications - The findings thoroughly describe the current CMA practices by companies committed to sustainability in Australia’s high carbon-emitting industries. Overall, the results show that while the respondents perceived CMA practices as essential for their companies’ sustainability performance and energy-saving, the CMA applications were inconsistent, along with some concerning results, such as a lack of assurance and accountability in the data validation and audit. These indicate the importance of policymakers to consider establishing CMA guidelines or standards to improve its practice. For any company, these findings can be used as learning materials to start or enhance CMA practice at their companies. A broader professional CMA community can strengthen the collective efforts to make CMA more robust. Social implications - The findings portray the perceptions of practitioners from Australia’s four highest carbon-emitting industries, indicating motivations to use CMA to understand their companies’ carbon footprint and reduce their companies’ environmental impacts. Originality/value - The findings contribute to the limited literature in this area and offer several valuable insights regarding the current practice of CMA in Australia, focussing on high carbon-emission industries. It also encourages more research in this area using data from other industries or countries to develop comparative results and strengthen the literature. Future research using actual carbon emission information or a longitudinal approach could also evaluate the changes and progresses in CMA practices.
Suggested Citation
Soheil Kazemian & Hadrian Geri Djajadikerta & Terri Trireksani & Kazi Sohag & Zuraidah Mohd Sanusi & Jamaliah Said, 2022.
"Carbon management accounting (CMA) practices in Australia’s high carbon-emission industries,"
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 13(5), pages 1132-1168, August.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:sampjp:sampj-05-2021-0174
DOI: 10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2021-0174
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Bugshan, Abdullah & Elsayih, Jibriel, 2023.
"Oil price uncertainty and carbon management system quality,"
Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
- Roger L. Burritt & Stefan Schaltegger & Katherine Leanne Christ, 2023.
"Environmental Management Accounting – Developments Over the Last 20 years from a Framework Perspective,"
Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 33(4), pages 336-351, December.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:sampjp:sampj-05-2021-0174. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.