IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i9p3693-d1385153.html

Back in the Driver’s Seat: How New EU Greenhouse-Gas Reporting Schemes Challenge Corporate Accounting

Author

Listed:
  • Julian Baehr

    (Institute IWAR Material Flow Management and Resource Economy, Technische Universität Darmstadt, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany)

  • Florian Zenglein

    (Department of International Relations, Institute for Political Science, Technische Universität Darmstadt, 64283 Darmstadt, Germany)

  • Guido Sonnemann

    (Institute of Molecular Sciences, University of Bordeaux, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Bordeaux INP, ISM, UMR 5255, 33400 Talence, France)

  • Markus Lederer

    (Department of International Relations, Institute for Political Science, Technische Universität Darmstadt, 64283 Darmstadt, Germany)

  • Liselotte Schebek

    (Institute IWAR Material Flow Management and Resource Economy, Technische Universität Darmstadt, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany)

Abstract

Greenhouse-gas (GHG) reporting schemes for companies are increasingly part of climate-mitigation policies worldwide. Notably, the European Green Deal (2019) boosts new public regulations that oblige companies to compile GHG emission inventories, i.e., account for their emissions in a given system boundary. Along with this boost, the workload for companies increases; at the same time, the quality of reporting is questioned. Given the overarching goal to improve companies’ climate-mitigation performance, the quality of reporting is inseparably connected to the quality of the respective accounting. However, the literature discusses carbon accounting as a universal umbrella term focusing on managerial issues, thus disregarding the crucial role of accounting methodologies in the sense of calculation approaches. In this publication, we apply an analytical approach introducing a clear differentiation between the task of quantitatively accounting for GHG inventories and the task of reporting results from calculated inventories in response to stakeholder or policy expectations. We use this approach to investigate European GHG reporting schemes and related GHG accounting methodologies in detail. Our findings indicate that the current phase of the European Green Deal depicts a quantitative growth in reporting schemes and a significant qualitative change by shifting from formerly voluntary to mandatory reporting schemes, along with the application of accounting methodologies originally not intended for politically compulsory purposes. We analyze the consequences of this shift, which poses new challenges for companies and policymakers, i.e., data-management concepts and refined methodological frameworks.

Suggested Citation

  • Julian Baehr & Florian Zenglein & Guido Sonnemann & Markus Lederer & Liselotte Schebek, 2024. "Back in the Driver’s Seat: How New EU Greenhouse-Gas Reporting Schemes Challenge Corporate Accounting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-20, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:9:p:3693-:d:1385153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/9/3693/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/9/3693/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank Hartmann & Paolo Perego & Anna Young, 2013. "Carbon Accounting: Challenges for Research in Management Control and Performance Measurement," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 49(4), pages 539-563, December.
    2. Green Jessica F, 2010. "Private Standards in the Climate Regime: The Greenhouse Gas Protocol," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(3), pages 1-39, October.
    3. Andrew, Jane & Cortese, Corinne, 2011. "Accounting for climate change and the self-regulation of carbon disclosures," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 130-138.
    4. Breeda Comyns & Frank Figge, 2015. "Greenhouse gas reporting quality in the oil and gas industry," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 28(3), pages 403-433, March.
    5. Green, Jessica F., 2010. "Private Standards in the Climate Regime: The Greenhouse Gas Protocol," Business and Politics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 1-37, October.
    6. Jane Andrew & Corinne Cortese, 2011. "Accounting for climate change and the self-regulation of carbon disclosures," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 130-138, September.
    7. Le Luo & Qingliang Tang & Yi‐Chen Lan, 2013. "Comparison of propensity for carbon disclosure between developing and developed countries," Accounting Research Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 26(1), pages 6-34, July.
    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. Binh Bui & Muhammad Nurul Houqe & Muhammad Kaleem Zahir-ul-Hassan, 2022. "Moderating effect of carbon accounting systems on strategy and carbon performance: a CDP analysis," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 483-524, December.
    2. Rainer Kasperzak & Marko Kureljusic & Lucas Reisch & Simon Thies, 2023. "Accounting for Carbon Emissions—Current State of Sustainability Reporting Practice under the GHG Protocol," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, January.
    3. Bikki Jaggi & Alessandra Allini & Riccardo Macchioni & Annamaria Zampella, 2018. "Do investors find carbon information useful? Evidence from Italian firms," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1031-1056, May.
    4. Meenakshi Sharma & Rajesh Kaushal & Prashant Kaushik & Seeram Ramakrishna, 2021. "Carbon Farming: Prospects and Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-15, October.
    5. Ismail N.B. & Sébastien Alcouffe & Galy N & Ceulemans K, 2020. "The impact of international sustainability initiatives on Life Cycle Assessment voluntary disclosures: The case of France’s CAC40 listed companies," Post-Print hal-03082800, HAL.
    6. Wang, Fangjun & Sun, Junqin & Liu, Yang Stephanie, 2019. "Institutional pressure, ultimate ownership, and corporate carbon reduction engagement: Evidence from China," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 14-26.
    7. Helfaya, Akrum & Aboud, Ahmed & Amin, Essam, 2023. "An examination of corporate environmental goals disclosure, sustainability performance and firm value – An Egyptian evidence," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    8. Ubaldo Comite & Alba Maria Gallo & Francesco Albergo & Valentina Beretta, 2025. "Accounting for Climate Change: A Temporal Analysis of the Literature," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(7), pages 8213-8236, November.
    9. Zhang, Ying & Andrew, Jane, 2022. "Financialisation and the Conceptual Framework: An update," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    10. Amer Shakkour & Hamza Alaodat & Emad Alqisi & Ali Alghazawi, 2018. "The Role of Environmental Accounting in Sustainable Development. Empirical Study," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 8(1), pages 1-5.
    11. Jan Fichtner & Robin Jaspert & Johannes Petry, 2024. "Mind the ESG capital allocation gap: The role of index providers, standard‐setting, and “green” indices for the creation of sustainability impact," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 479-498, April.
    12. Janina Grabs & Graeme Auld & Benjamin Cashore, 2021. "Private regulation, public policy, and the perils of adverse ontological selection," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1183-1208, October.
    13. Jessica F Green, 2017. "Policy entrepreneurship in climate governance: Toward a comparative approach," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(8), pages 1471-1482, December.
    14. Jason Thistlethwaite & Matthew Paterson, 2016. "Private governance and accounting for sustainability networks," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(7), pages 1197-1221, November.
    15. Axel Haller & Chris J. van Staden & Cristina Landis, 2018. "Value Added as part of Sustainability Reporting: Reporting on Distributional Fairness or Obfuscation?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 763-781, October.
    16. Zhou, Jianzhao & Liu, Chaoshuo & Ren, Jingzheng & He, Chang, 2024. "Targeting carbon-neutral waste reduction: Novel process design, modelling and optimization for converting medical waste into hydrogen," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    17. Frederik Dahlmann & Layla Branicki & Stephen Brammer, 2019. "Managing Carbon Aspirations: The Influence of Corporate Climate Change Targets on Environmental Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 1-24, August.
    18. Miley, Frances & Read, Andrew, 2021. "Soldiers don't go mad: Shell shock and accounting intransigence in the British Army 1914-18," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    19. Sheela Sundarasen & Usha Rajagopalan & Beata Zyznarska-Dworczak, 2025. "Sustainability Reporting as a Governance Tool for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Bibliometric and Content Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-16, May.
    20. Rashmeet Kaur & John Patsavellas & Yousef Haddad & Konstantinos Salonitis, 2023. "The Concept of Carbon Accounting in Manufacturing Systems and Supply Chains," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-17, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:9:p:3693-:d:1385153. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.