IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Can we trust corporates GHG inventories? An investigation among Canada's large final emitters

  • Talbot, David
  • Boiral, Olivier
Registered author(s):

    In the public sphere and the literature on climate strategies, the measurability of corporate GHG emissions tends to be taken for granted, and few empirical studies have examined the reliability of such data. The present case study, which was conducted among 10 Canadian companies considered as large final emitters and three auditing firms, focuses on the factors which could affect the perceived credibility of GHG inventories and the strategic implications of these. The qualitative, inductive study allows identifying three main factors which affect trust in business inventories: technical issues and complexity of GHG measurements, lack of transparency on the part of the companies and unreliability of verification mechanisms. The study also makes it possible to evaluate the implications of uncertainties concerning GHG inventories which are of strategic importance for companies and policy makers. While the reliability of GHG measurement is taken for granted at the political level, uncertainties in this area can in fact have a huge impact on the establishment of the cap and trade system. The study also contributes to the literature on carbon accounting by shedding light on underexplored ethical issues, including the lack of independence of auditors and its implications.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513009786
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Energy Policy.

    Volume (Year): 63 (2013)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 1075-1085

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:63:y:2013:i:c:p:1075-1085
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Vine, Edward & Kats, Gregory & Sathaye, Jayant & Joshi, Hemant, 2003. "International greenhouse gas trading programs: a discussion of measurement and accounting issues," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 211-224, February.
    2. Jan Bebbington & Carlos Larrinaga-Gonzalez, 2008. "Carbon Trading: Accounting and Reporting Issues," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 697-717.
    3. Engels, Anita, 2009. "The European Emissions Trading Scheme: An exploratory study of how companies learn to account for carbon," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(3-4), pages 488-498, April.
    4. Jose-Manuel Prado-Lorenzo & Isabel-Maria Garcia-Sanchez, 2010. "The Role of the Board of Directors in Disseminating Relevant Information on Greenhouse Gases," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(3), pages 391-424, December.
    5. Stacey Cowan & Craig Deegan, 2011. "Corporate disclosure reactions to Australia’s first national emission reporting scheme," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 51(2), pages 409-436, 06.
    6. Cho, Charles H. & Roberts, Robin W. & Patten, Dennis M., 2010. "The language of US corporate environmental disclosure," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 431-443, May.
    7. Brendan O'Dwyer & Jeffrey Unerman & Elaine Hession, 2005. "User needs in sustainability reporting: Perspectives of stakeholders in Ireland," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 759-787.
    8. MacKenzie, Donald, 2009. "Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(3-4), pages 440-455, April.
    9. Markus J. Milne & Suzana Grubnic, 2011. "Climate change accounting research: keeping it interesting and different," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 24(8), pages 948-977, October.
    10. Olivier Boiral, 2013. "Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 26(7), pages 1036-1071, October.
    11. Wendy Green & Qixin Li, 2012. "Evidence of an expectation gap for greenhouse gas emissions assurance," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(1), pages 146-173, January.
    12. Thomas Wiedmann, 2009. "Editorial: Carbon Footprint And Input-Output Analysis - An Introduction," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 175-186.
    13. Frances Bowen & Bettina Wittneben, 2011. "Carbon accounting: Negotiating accuracy, consistency and certainty across organisational fields," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 24(8), pages 1022-1036, October.
    14. J. C. Minx & T. Wiedmann & R. Wood & G. P. Peters & M. Lenzen & A. Owen & K. Scott & J. Barrett & K. Hubacek & G. Baiocchi & A. Paul & E. Dawkins & J. Briggs & D. Guan & S. Suh & F. Ackerman, 2009. "Input-Output Analysis And Carbon Footprinting: An Overview Of Applications," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 187-216.
    15. Gray, Rob, 2010. "Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability...and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 47-62, January.
    16. Power, Michael, 1999. "The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198296034, March.
    17. Hopwood, Anthony G., 2009. "Accounting and the environment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(3-4), pages 433-439, April.
    18. Sue Hrasky, 2012. "Carbon footprints and legitimation strategies: symbolism or action?," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(1), pages 174-198, January.
    19. K. Dhanda & Laura Hartman, 2011. "The Ethics of Carbon Neutrality: A Critical Examination of Voluntary Carbon Offset Providers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 100(1), pages 119-149, April.
    20. Y. Anny Huang & Manfred Lenzen & Christopher Weber & Joy Murray & H. Scott Matthews, 2009. "The Role Of Input-Output Analysis For The Screening Of Corporate Carbon Footprints," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 217-242.
    21. Michaela Rankin & Carolyn Windsor & Dina Wahyuni, 2011. "An investigation of voluntary corporate greenhouse gas emissions reporting in a market governance system: Australian evidence," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 24(8), pages 1037-1070, October.
    22. Schultz, Karl & Williamson, Peter, 2005. "Gaining Competitive Advantage in a Carbon-constrained World:: Strategies for European Business," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 383-391, August.
    23. Ans Kolk & David Levy & Jonatan Pinkse, 2008. "Corporate Responses in an Emerging Climate Regime: The Institutionalization and Commensuration of Carbon Disclosure," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 719-745.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:63:y:2013:i:c:p:1075-1085. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.