---

Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management 7(3) (2019) 253--262 | DOI:10.5890/JEAM.2019.09.001

Eka Siskawati$^{1}$, Eko Ganis Sukoharsono$^{2}$, Rosidi$^{2}$, Abdul Ghofar$^{2}$, Daniel T. H. Manurung$^{3}$

$^{1}$ Departement of Accounting, Politeknik Negeri Padang, Padang Sumatera Barat, Indonesia

$^{2}$ Faculty of Economic and Business, University of Brawijaya

$^{3}$ Faculty of Economy, University of Widyatama, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia

Download Full Text PDF

 

Abstract

The research objective is to understand changes in management accounting and environmental performance assessment (institutional analysis), which play a role in preparing the company’s environmental report. This study discusses the company’s response when there are changes in government regulations relating to reporting environmental performance. Regulations on reporting environmental performance are categorized into phase 2, namely phase 1 environmental reporting, environmental impact analysis (AMDAL)and reporting on environmental performance phase2, Corporate Performance Rating Program(PROPER). Phase 1 environmental reporting (AMDAL) includes reports of basic activities on the profile of company activities, potential impacts and environmental damage caused and steps to preventthem. Meanwhile, environmental reporting phase 2 (PROPER), includes reports of activities that are beyond compliance, namely the design of internal environmental management systems and corporate relations with external social communities. The regulation on phase 2 environmental performance assessment(PROPER) is compulsory and limited, and this study discusses the motivation behind the company’sresponse to the environment. This study uses a descriptive qualitative approach to explain the role of environmental management accounting in reporting the company’s environmental performance. Data collection methods through interviews and observations were analyzed using case studies and institutionalist theory analysis framework. The results of this study are not intended to be generalized. Therefore,the discussion and research findings are more contextual. This research was conducted on the company Tango Company, a national company owned by the Indonesian government engaged in mineral processing(cementproduction). The findings of this study are that environmental management accounting practices at Tango Company involve planning environmental activities and measuring environmental performance in accordance with the assessment criteria expected by the government. The practice of environmental management accounting began to be seen since the government imposeda stage 2 environmental performance assessment.

References

1. [1]	Adams, C.A. and Frost, G.R. (2008), Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices, Accounting Forum, 32, 288-302.

2. [2]	Adams, C.A. and Larrinaga-gonza,C. (2007), Engaging with organisations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance, Social Science Electronic Publishing, 20(3), 333-355.

3. [3]	Albelda, E. (2011), The role of management accounting practices as facilitators of the environmental management, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 2(1), 76-100.

4. [4]	Alcouffe, S., Berland, N., and Levant, Y. (2008), Actor-networks and the diffusion of management accounting innovations: a comparative study, Management Accounting Research, 19, 1-17.

5. [5]	Arroyo, P. (2012), Management accounting change and sustainability: an institutional approach, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 8(3), 286-309.

6. [6]	Ball, A. (2004), Environmental accounting and change in UK local government, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18(3), 345-373.

7. [7]	Burns, J. and Scapens, R.W. (2000), Conceptualizing management accounting change: an institutional framework, Management Accounting Research, 11(November 1998), 3-25.

8. [8]	Chenhall, R.H. (2008), Accounting for the horizontal organisation: a review essay, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 517-550.

9. [9]	Eldenburg, L., Soderstrom, N.,Willis, V., andWu, A. (2010), Behavioural changes following the collaborative development of an accounting information system, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(2), 222-237.

10. [10]	Fiondella, C., Macchioni, R., Maffei, M., and Span, R. (2016), Successful changes in management accounting systems: a healthcare case study, Accounting Forum, 40, 186-204.

11. [11]	Hart, S.L. and Milstein, M.B. (2003), Creating sustainable value, Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(2), 56-67.

12. [12]	Iraldo, F., Testa, F., and Frey, M. (2009), Is an environmental management system able to influence environmental and competitive performance? The case of the eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) in the European Union, Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(16), 1444-1452.

13. [13]	Jacobs, K. (1995), Budgets: a medium of organizational transformation,Management Accounting Research, 6, 59-75.

14. [14]	Johansson, T. and Siverbo, S. (2009), Why is research on management accounting change not explicitly evolutionary? Taking the next step in the conceptualisation of management accounting change, Management Accounting Research, 20, 146-162.

15. [15]	Justesen, L., Mouritsen, J., Justesen, L., and Mouritsen, J. (2011), Effects of actor-network theory in accounting research, Accounting Auditing & Accountability, 24(2),161-193.

16. [16]	Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C. and Bebbington, J. (2001), Accounting change or institutional appropriation? - A case study of the implementation of environmental accounting, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(3), 269-292.

17. [17]	Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., and Leca, B. (2011), Institutionalwork: refocusing institutional studies of organization, Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52-58.

18. [18]	Lounsbury,M. (2008), Institutional rationality and practice variation: new directions in the institutional analysis of practice, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 349-361.

19. [19]	Ma, Y. and Tayles, M. (2009), On the emergence of strategic management accounting: an institutional perspective, Accounting and Business Research, 39(5), 473-495.

20. [20]	Modell, S. (2001), Performance measurement and institutional processes: a study of managerial responses to public sector reform, Management Accounting Research, 12(4), 437-464.

21. [21]	Nawrocka, D. and Parker, T. (2009), Finding the connection: environmental management systems and environmental performance, Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 601-607.

22. [22]	Sharma, U., Lawrence, S., and Lowe, A. (2010), Institutional contradiction and management control innovation: a field study of total quality management practices in a privatized telecommunication company, Management Accounting Research, 21(4), 251-264.

23. [23]	Siti-Nabiha, A.K. and Scapens, R.W. (2005), Stability and change: an institutionalist study of management accounting change, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18(1), 44-73.

24. [24]	Wickramasinghe, D. (2015), Getting management accounting off the ground: post-colonial neoliberalism in healthcare budgets, Accounting and Business Research, 45(3), 323-355.

25. [25]	Youssef, M.A. (2013), Management accounting change in an Egyptian organization: an institutional analysis, Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change, 9(1), 50-73.