Accounting for Carbon Emission Allowances: An Empirical Analysis in the EU ETS Phase 3

Q2 Business, Management and Accounting
Nicolas Garcia-Torea, Sophie Giordano-Spring, Carlos Larrinaga, Géraldine Rivière-Giordano
{"title":"Accounting for Carbon Emission Allowances: An Empirical Analysis in the EU ETS Phase 3","authors":"Nicolas Garcia-Torea, Sophie Giordano-Spring, Carlos Larrinaga, Géraldine Rivière-Giordano","doi":"10.1080/0969160X.2021.2012496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This investigation studies the accounting treatment of the carbon emission allowances of EU Emissions Trading System participants to explore whether the auctioning allocation system implemented in 2013 led to changes in accounting practices. This investigation adds to Allini, Giner, and Caldarelli (2018. “Opening the Black Box of Accounting for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Different Views of Institutional Bodies and Firms.” Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 2195–2205.) by performing a comparative study of how emission allowances are recorded in the 2011 and 2016 financial statements of a large sample of the highest emitters in the system that operate in eight different industries. We also update the analysis of the role of local standards in shaping carbon accounting practices in a context characterised by the lack of IFRS prescription. We found that auctioning did not modify accounting practices as they continue to be ‘messy’ and often absent. The high level of non-disclosure and the prevailing use of the ‘net method’ conceal the burden of allowances from users of financial statements. Additionally, we report that firms’ carbon accounting practices are more aligned with their local standard when it allows a limited representation of the financial impact of allowances. Therefore, current accounting practices are far from enabling an adequate assessment of the financial impact and risks resulting from carbon markets.","PeriodicalId":38053,"journal":{"name":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","volume":"42 1","pages":"93 - 115"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social and Environmental Accountability Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2021.2012496","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

ABSTRACT This investigation studies the accounting treatment of the carbon emission allowances of EU Emissions Trading System participants to explore whether the auctioning allocation system implemented in 2013 led to changes in accounting practices. This investigation adds to Allini, Giner, and Caldarelli (2018. “Opening the Black Box of Accounting for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Different Views of Institutional Bodies and Firms.” Journal of Cleaner Production 172: 2195–2205.) by performing a comparative study of how emission allowances are recorded in the 2011 and 2016 financial statements of a large sample of the highest emitters in the system that operate in eight different industries. We also update the analysis of the role of local standards in shaping carbon accounting practices in a context characterised by the lack of IFRS prescription. We found that auctioning did not modify accounting practices as they continue to be ‘messy’ and often absent. The high level of non-disclosure and the prevailing use of the ‘net method’ conceal the burden of allowances from users of financial statements. Additionally, we report that firms’ carbon accounting practices are more aligned with their local standard when it allows a limited representation of the financial impact of allowances. Therefore, current accounting practices are far from enabling an adequate assessment of the financial impact and risks resulting from carbon markets.
碳排放限额核算:欧盟排放交易计划第三阶段的实证分析
摘要本调查研究了欧盟排放交易体系参与者碳排放配额的会计处理,以探讨2013年实施的拍卖分配制度是否导致了会计实践的变化。这项调查增加了Allini、Giner和Caldarelli(2018。《打开温室气体排放核算的黑匣子:机构和企业的不同观点》,《清洁生产杂志》172:2195–2205。),通过对在八个不同行业运营的系统中排放量最高的大样本的2011年和2016年财务报表中排放限额的记录进行比较研究。在缺乏《国际财务报告准则》规定的背景下,我们还更新了对地方标准在制定碳核算实践中的作用的分析。我们发现,拍卖并没有改变会计实践,因为它们仍然是“混乱的”,而且经常缺席。高度保密和普遍使用“净额法”掩盖了财务报表使用者的津贴负担。此外,我们报告称,当允许有限地反映津贴的财务影响时,企业的碳核算实践更符合当地标准。因此,目前的会计做法远远不能充分评估碳市场产生的财务影响和风险。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Social and Environmental Accountability Journal
Social and Environmental Accountability Journal Business, Management and Accounting-Accounting
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Social and Environmental Accountability Journal (SEAJ) is the official Journal of The Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research. It is a predominantly refereed Journal committed to the creation of a new academic literature in the broad field of social, environmental and sustainable development accounting, accountability, reporting and auditing. The Journal provides a forum for a wide range of different forms of academic and academic-related communications whose aim is to balance honesty and scholarly rigour with directness, clarity, policy-relevance and novelty. SEAJ welcomes all contributions that fulfil the criteria of the journal, including empirical papers, review papers and essays, manuscripts reporting or proposing engagement, commentaries and polemics, and reviews of articles or books. A key feature of SEAJ is that papers are shorter than the word length typically anticipated in academic journals in the social sciences. A clearer breakdown of the proposed word length for each type of paper in SEAJ can be found here.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信