IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ijefaa/v14y2022i9p65.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are There Differences between Estimate (Theoretical) and Actual MACC Approaches of Emission Reduction?

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Ahmed Ali Almihoub
  • Joseph M. Mula
  • Mohammad Mafizur Rahman

Abstract

The global warming phenomenon has become an international issue which requires effort to avoid and control the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs). At the same time, despite various attempts, developed countries need to put more effort and attention into dealing with this issue. Many studies have been conducted on reducing GHGs globally and nationally. The majority of these studies have focused at a national or sectorial level, particularly in the industrial sector. This study focuses on stationary energy. There are two main ways to reduce GHGs, particularly CO2. One is to replace carbon-based fuels with renewables. The other is to reduce consumption. To achieve further GHG emission reductions, improvements to regarding the use of energy are an emerging area of research that has significant implications for policy. Quantitative and qualitative research methodologies were used for this research. The findings of this research indicate that organisations are seeking a more accurate approach to save energy, reduce emissions, and determine the impact of users.’ Organisations are planning to use management accounting methods such as Marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs) when measuring the cost of abatement or reduction in environmental costs for more effective decision-making. This study developed a concept by using actual data in MACC. The design established support for organisations to meet data accuracy needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Ali Ahmed Ali Almihoub & Joseph M. Mula & Mohammad Mafizur Rahman, 2022. "Are There Differences between Estimate (Theoretical) and Actual MACC Approaches of Emission Reduction?," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(9), pages 1-65, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ijefaa:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:65
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijef/article/download/0/0/47676/51140
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijef/article/view/0/47676
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lynette Molyneaux & John Foster & Liam Wagner, 2010. "Is there a more effective way to reduce carbon emissions?," Energy Economics and Management Group Working Papers 04, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    2. Stephen Smith, 1992. "Taxation and the environment: a survey," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 13(4), pages 21-57, January.
    3. Bebbington, Jan & Brown, Judy & Frame, Bob, 2007. "Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 224-236, March.
    4. den Elzen, Michel G. J. & de Moor, Andre P. G., 2002. "Analyzing the Kyoto Protocol under the Marrakesh Accords: economic efficiency and environmental effectiveness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 141-158, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olivier Boiral & Marie‐Christine Brotherton & Léo Rivaud & David Talbot, 2022. "Comparing the uncomparable? An investigation of car manufacturers' climate performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 2213-2229, July.
    2. Davide Giacomini & Paola Zola & Diego Paredi & Mario Mazzoleni, 2020. "Environmental disclosure and stakeholder engagement via social media: State of the art and potential in public utilities," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1552-1564, July.
    3. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    4. Blackburn, Nivea & Brown, Judy & Dillard, Jesse & Hooper, Val, 2014. "A dialogical framing of AIS–SEA design," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 83-101.
    5. Johan Eyckmans & Cathrine Hagem, 2009. "The European Union's Potential for Strategic Emissions Trading through Minimal Permit Sale Contracts," CESifo Working Paper Series 2809, CESifo.
    6. Saravanamuthu, Kala & Lehman, Cheryl, 2013. "Enhancing stakeholder interaction through environmental risk accounts," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 410-437.
    7. Henrik Klinge Jacobsen & Katja Birr-Pedersen & Mette Wier, 2003. "Distributional Implications of Environmental Taxation in Denmark," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 24(4), pages 477-499, December.
    8. Dieter Schmidtchen & Jenny Helstroffer & Christian Koboldt, 2021. "Regulatory failure and the polluter pays principle: why regulatory impact assessment dominates the polluter pays principle," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(1), pages 109-144, January.
    9. Rapanos, Vassilis T., 1995. "The effects of environmental taxes on income distribution," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 487-501, September.
    10. Chen, Dan & Webber, Michael & Chen, Jing & Luo, Zhaohui, 2011. "Emergy evaluation perspectives of an irrigation improvement project proposal in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2154-2162, September.
    11. Gevrek, Z.Eylem & Uyduranoglu, Ayse, 2015. "Public preferences for carbon tax attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 186-197.
    12. Herman Vollebergh & Jan Vries & Paul Koutstaal, 1997. "Hybrid carbon incentive mechanisms and political acceptability," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(1), pages 43-63, January.
    13. Frame, Bob & Brown, Judy, 2008. "Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 225-241, April.
    14. François Facchini, 1995. "La qualité de l’environnement, nouvel enjeu de la réforme de la politique agricole commune," Post-Print hal-01350619, HAL.
    15. Marta Solórzano-García & Julio Navío-Marco & Luis Manuel Ruiz-Gómez, 2019. "Ambiguity in the Attribution of Social Impact: A Study of the Difficulties of Calculating Filter Coefficients in the SROI Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, January.
    16. Agust'n Pérez-Barahona & Benteng Zou, 2006. "Energy-saving technological progress in a vintage capital model," Chapters, in: Carlos de Miguel & Xavier Labanderia & Baltasar Manzano (ed.), Economic Modelling of Climate Change and Energy Policies, chapter 11, pages 166-179, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. A. Lans Bovenberg & Frederick van der Ploeg, 2002. "Environmental Policy, Public Finance and the Labour Market in a Second-Best World," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 6, pages 112-153, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. James, Simon & Alley, Clinton, 2002. "Tax compliance, self-assessment and tax administration," MPRA Paper 26906, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Simon James, 1999. "The future international tax environment and European tax harmonization: a personal view," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 731-747.
    20. Simona Cosma & Rossella Leopizzi & Simone Pizzi & Mario Turco, 2021. "The stakeholder engagement in the European banks: Regulation versus governance. What changes after the NF directive?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 1091-1103, May.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ibn:ijefaa:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:65. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.