---

Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management 3(1) (2015) 47--57 | DOI:10.5890/JEAM.2015.03.004

Caiping Zhang$^{1}$; Timothy O. Randhir$^{2}$

$^{1}$ School of Economics and Management, University of South China, Hengyang, China

$^{2}$ Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA

Download Full Text PDF

 

Abstract

Carbon emission rights scheme as a market-oriented mechanism is regarded as an effective way to cut down the volumes of greenhouse gases. However, Although International Accounting Standard Board (IASB) and Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) have done much work in this field, it appears to have little progress. Therefore, accounting for carbon emission rights has become a dilemma in global accounting area. In this paper, we use a comparative analysis of process features and accounting recognition problems in two allocation schemes: “Cap and Trading Scheme” (CTS) and “Baseline and Credit Scheme” (BCS). We analyze similarities and differences of two schemes that lead to different accounting principles. The research indicate that carbon emission rights, either allowance or credit, have similarity in currency property, although it has different kinds of features. The systematical differences between CTS and BCS lead to basic differences in accounting principles. Under CTS, the different purposes like holding allowance for trading or holding allowance for commitment lead to different ways of accounting recognition. Under BCS, it only needs to recognize credit as a carbon currency. The paper provides a unique perspective to handle accounting principle dilemma of carbon emission rights. The accounting principles are helpful for the enterprises to well manage carbon losses or gains by completely reflecting the whole process of emission rights distribution, trading and delivery. The research results will provide directions for accounting standard setting boards to formulate the accounting standard for carbon emission rights.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Xu Xiao and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and the China National Social Science Foundation (Grant No.13CGL029) and Hunan Social Science Foundation (Grant No.14YBA339) for providing financial support.

References

1. [1]	Barker, P. (2003), Financial Reporting: Emission Rights-Permission for emission: a real assets? Accountancy 132(2): 90-102.

2. [2]	Bebbington, J. (2008), Carbon trading: accounting and reporting issues, European Accounting Review 17(4): 697-7171.

3. [3]	Cai, B.F. and Liu, L.C. (2010), Carbon currency: a new international currency under low carbon times, Chinese Energy 2: 10-13.

4. [4]	Boston, J. and Lempp, F, (2011), Climate change: explaining and solving the mismatch between scientific urgency and political inertia, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 24(8): 1000-1021.

5. [5]	Brown, A.M., Pignatel, I., Hanoteau, J. and Paranque, B. (2009), The silence on climate change by accounting’s top journals, The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses, in press.

6. [6]	Burritt, R. (2011), Carbon management accounting: Explaining practice in German companies, Australian Accounting Review 21(1): 80-98.

7. [7]	Cook, A. (2009), Emission rights: From cost less activity to market operations, Accounting, Organizations and Society 34(3): 456-467.

8. [8]	EITF. (2003), Participants’ Accounting for Emissions Allowances under a “Cap and Trade” Program Issue No.03-14, 2003-12-20.

9. [9]	Gadd, F. and Harrison, J. (2002), Accounting for carbon under the UK Emission Trading Scheme Discussion Paper. International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) 65(5): 1-23.

10. [10]	Seyfang, G. (2008), Personal carbon trading: lessons from complementary currencies. 2008-5-20. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/twp136.pdf.

11. [11]	IASB. (2004), International Financial Reporting Interpretation Committee (IFRIC): Draft Interpretation D1, Emission Rights. 2004- 2-28.

12. [12]	IASB. (2007), Accounting for Emissions Trading Schemes.2007-12-12.

13. [13]	IASB. (2009), Emissions Trading Schemes: Accounting for issued trading offsets. 2009-12-12

14. [14]	IPCC. (2013), Climate Change 2013: Synthesis Report: an assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

15. [15]	Pignatel, I. and Brown, A. (2010), Lessons to be learned French top accounting journals’ contribution to climate change, EuroMed Journal of Business 5(1): 70-85.

16. [16]	Button, J. (2008), Carbon: commodity or currency? The case of international carbon market based on the currency model, Harvard Environmental Law Review 52(1): 571-594.

17. [17]	Lohmann, L. (2009), Toward a different debate in environmental accounting: the cases of carbon and cost-benefit, Accounting Organizations and Society 34: 499-534.

18. [18]	Shen, M.H. and Qian S.M. (2009), Emission Rights. Beijing: Chinese Environment Science Press. 4: 190-191.

19. [19]	Milne, M.J. and Grubnic, S. (2011), Climate change accounting research: keeping it interesting and different, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(8): 948-977.

20. [20]	Okereke, C. (2007), An exploration of motivations, drivers and barriers to carbon management: the UK FTSE 100, European Management Journal 25(6): 475-86.

21. [21]	Veith, S. (2009), Competing Accounting Treatments for Emission Rights: A Capital Market Perspective, 52(9): 132-141. http://www.frankfurt-school.de/clicnetclm/fileDownload.do?goid=000000276189AB4.

22. [22]	World Bank. (2012), State and Trends of the Carbon Market. 2012-12-31. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCARBONFINANCE/Resources/State_and_Trends_2012_Web_Optimized_19035_Cvr&T xt_LR.pdf.