Field-configuring events and the failure to standardise accounting for carbon emissions

Sophie Giordano-Spring, Carlos Larrinaga, Géraldine Rivière-Giordano
{"title":"Field-configuring events and the failure to standardise accounting for carbon emissions","authors":"Sophie Giordano-Spring, Carlos Larrinaga, Géraldine Rivière-Giordano","doi":"10.1108/aaaj-07-2022-5946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Since the withdrawal of IFRIC 3 in 2005, there has been a regulatory freeze in accounting for emission rights that contrasts with the international momentum of climate-related financial disclosures. This paper explores how different narratives and institutional dynamics explain the failure to produce guidance on accounting for emission rights.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>This paper mobilises the notion of field-configuring events to examine a sequence of six events between 2003 and 2016, including four public consultations and two dialogues between standard setters. The paper presents a qualitative analysis of documents produced in this space that investigates how different practices and narratives configured the field's positions, agenda, and meaning systems.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Accounting for emission rights was gradually decoupled from climate change and carbon markets, relegated to the research pipeline, and forgotten. The obstacles that the IASB and EFRAG found in presenting themselves as central in the recurring events, the excess of representations, and the increasingly technical and abstract debates eroded the 2003 momentum for regulation, making the different initiatives to revitalise the project vulnerable and open to scrutiny. Lukes (2021) refers to nondecision-making to express that some issues are suffocated before they are expressed.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>The regulation of accounting for emission rights, an area that has received scant attention in the literature, provides some insights into the different narrative mechanisms that, materialising in specific times and spaces, draw regulatory attention to particular accounting issues, which are problematised and, eventually, forgotten. This study also illustrates that identifying interests is problematic as actors shift from alternative positions over a long period. The case examined also raises some doubts about the previous effectiveness of international standard setters in dealing with matters of connectivity between the environment and finance, as is the case for accounting for emissions rights.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":501027,"journal":{"name":"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal ","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-07-2022-5946","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Since the withdrawal of IFRIC 3 in 2005, there has been a regulatory freeze in accounting for emission rights that contrasts with the international momentum of climate-related financial disclosures. This paper explores how different narratives and institutional dynamics explain the failure to produce guidance on accounting for emission rights.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper mobilises the notion of field-configuring events to examine a sequence of six events between 2003 and 2016, including four public consultations and two dialogues between standard setters. The paper presents a qualitative analysis of documents produced in this space that investigates how different practices and narratives configured the field's positions, agenda, and meaning systems.

Findings

Accounting for emission rights was gradually decoupled from climate change and carbon markets, relegated to the research pipeline, and forgotten. The obstacles that the IASB and EFRAG found in presenting themselves as central in the recurring events, the excess of representations, and the increasingly technical and abstract debates eroded the 2003 momentum for regulation, making the different initiatives to revitalise the project vulnerable and open to scrutiny. Lukes (2021) refers to nondecision-making to express that some issues are suffocated before they are expressed.

Originality/value

The regulation of accounting for emission rights, an area that has received scant attention in the literature, provides some insights into the different narrative mechanisms that, materialising in specific times and spaces, draw regulatory attention to particular accounting issues, which are problematised and, eventually, forgotten. This study also illustrates that identifying interests is problematic as actors shift from alternative positions over a long period. The case examined also raises some doubts about the previous effectiveness of international standard setters in dealing with matters of connectivity between the environment and finance, as is the case for accounting for emissions rights.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实地配置事件和碳排放核算标准化的失败
目的自 2005 年《国际财务报告解释委员会第 3 号》(IFRIC 3)撤消以来,排放权会计的监管一直处于冻结状态,这与气候相关财务披露的国际势头形成了鲜明对比。本文探讨了不同的叙述和制度动态如何解释排放权会计指南未能出台的原因。本文采用了 "领域配置事件 "的概念,对 2003 年至 2016 年间的六次事件进行了研究,包括四次公众咨询和两次准则制定者之间的对话。本文对这一领域中产生的文件进行了定性分析,研究了不同的实践和叙事是如何配置该领域的立场、议程和意义系统的。研究结果排放权核算逐渐与气候变化和碳市场脱钩,被归入研究管道,并被遗忘。国际会计准则理事会(IASB)和欧洲财务报告咨询委员会(EFRAG)在反复出现的事件中表现自己的中心地位时遇到了障碍,过多的表述以及日益技术化和抽象化的辩论削弱了 2003 年监管的势头,使重振项目的不同倡议变得脆弱并受到审查。Lukes (2021)将 "非决策"(nondecision-making)表述为:有些问题在表达之前就已经窒息。这项研究还说明,由于行为者在很长一段时间内从不同的立场转向其他立场,因此确定利益是有问题的。所研究的案例也让人对国际标准制定者以前在处理环境与金融之间的联系问题(如排放权的核算)时的有效性产生了一些怀疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ways of not seeing: visibility, blindness, and the transparency game Accounting for racial inequality in South Africa with the black economic empowerment policy Boundary objects: sustainability reporting and the production of organizational stability Responding to employee-based race inequalities in National Health Service (England): accountability and the Workforce Race Equality Standard The failure of the United Kingdom’s accounting and fiscal governance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1