CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Accounting and Organizational ManagementCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingAccounting and Financial Management

Framing of Climate Change Impacts and Use of Management Accounting Practices

Open access
Faculty of Business and Law, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218 Hawthorn VIC 3122 Australia, Kumarasiri, Jayanthi, Jubb, Christine, Centre for Transformative Innovation, Faculty of Business and Law, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218 Hawthorn VIC 3122 Australia·2018·Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance
DOI 10.21315/aamjaf2017.13.2.3
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study examines (i) how companies perceive climate change impacts in terms of opportunities or threats and the reasons for these perceptions, and (ii) use of management accounting practices to manage carbon emissions and the relationship between climate change perceptions and accounting use.The sample consists of Australian companies that participated in the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) 2009 survey.We find that how climate change impacts are framed (as threat or opportunity) influences the use of planning and target setting, performance measurement and incentivisation in managing emissions.However, in general, use of accounting practices in managing carbon emissions is limited.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21315/aamjaf2017.13.2.3

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Increased locus of control (users feeling more ownership over their own health) is a facilitating factor in using DMHIs.

    “A facilitating factor in using DMHIs was whether the use of the intervention increased locus of control, meaning that users felt more ownership over their own health [14,84,95,124,174,175].”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of user engagement with digital mental health interventions: Systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [174]

    The Prospect Theory and Framing and Incentivisation sections discuss managers’ perceptions of climate-change threats and corporate carbon-emissions practices, not digital mental health interventions. Searches for locus of control, ownership of health, and mental health intervention use found no relevant passage. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C., & Moneva, J. M. (2008). Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing & Accounting Journal, 21(3), 337 -361.
  2. Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organisational actions. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 79-90.
  3. Garnaut, R. (2008). The Garnaut climate change review: Final report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Lee, S. Y., & Klassen, R. S. (2015). Firms' response to climate change: The interplay of business uncertainty and organizational capabilities. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(8), 577-592.
  5. Sebora, T. C., & Cornwall J. R. (1995). Expected utility theory vs. prospect theory: Implications for strategic decision makers. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7(1), 41-61.
  6. Sprengel, D. C., & Busch, T. (2011). Stakeholder engagement and environmental strategy: The case of climate change. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(6), 351- 364.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Faculty of Business and Law, S. U. O. T., Kumarasiri, J., Jubb, C., & Centre for Transformative Innovation, F. O. B. A. L.
Affiliations
Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance
Publisher
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Published
2018
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
45-68
ISSN
  • 1823-4992 (ISSN-L)
  • 2180-4192
DOI
10.21315/aamjaf2017.13.2.3
OpenAlex
W2797458756
Cited by
6
References
10
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Asian Academy of Management Journal of Accounting and Finance (publishedVersion)
  • Universiti Sains Malaysia Institutional Repository (Universiti Sains Malaysia) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Accounting and Organizational Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Accounting and Financial Management
Keywords
climate change impacts, framing effects, climate change perception, management accounting practices, carbon emission management, Carbon Disclosure Project, performance measurement, incentive mechanisms, target setting, Australian firms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review