Accountability for climate change: a research synthesis through the lenses of the integrated thinking approach

Abstract

Purpose The increasing responsibility of organisations towards society and the environment has inverted the relationship between accounting and accountability, leading to accountability-based accounting systems. This study aims to explore the debate on accountability for climate change within the integrating thinking (IT) perspective. Ascertaining the most significant trends in the debate around purposes and performance that characterise climate mitigation engagement and their connections, the study would explore if and to what extent organisations are tackling climate actions. Design/methodology/approach A narrative review of the extensive academic literature developed from the Kyoto Protocol to date was performed. After selecting a representative sample, papers were analysed with the support of a new analytical framework that involves three dimensions – answerability, enforcement and outcome – and governance schemes that emerge from the involvement of the private and public sector and civil society. With the support of NVivo software, themes arisen were analysed and coded. Key items were labelled, creating specific nodes and synthesised into the proposed framework. Findings A “silo approach” largely characterises the debate on accountability for climate change. The most significant reasons behind the shortcomings of extant climate actions may be retrieved firstly in the weakness of the motivations that guide organisations to operate in a climate-friendly way. Social implications This study underlines the need for a 360° integrated approach for strategically tackling climate actions. Originality/value This study would represent a further step towards an integrated approach for studying organisations behaviours in the “climate war”, embracing the connectivity between purposes and outcomes, capitals and the relationships amongst the various stakeholders.

Understanding integrated thinking: evidence from the field, the development of a framework and avenues for future research

“…In the last paper of the special issue, Brunelli et al (2021) contribute to the debate on accountability for climate change using the integrating thinking perspective. The authors argue that the debate on accountability for climate change is dominated by a “silo approach,” which results in a loss of connectivity among internal and external factors, leading to weak motivations, as well as poor performance in tackling climate change (Brunelli et al , 2021). The study suggests adopting an integrated thinking approach grounded on “The Climate Governance Triangle” in the development of accounting and accountability tools to address climate issues (Brunelli et al , 2021).…”

“…The authors argue that the debate on accountability for climate change is dominated by a “silo approach,” which results in a loss of connectivity among internal and external factors, leading to weak motivations, as well as poor performance in tackling climate change (Brunelli et al , 2021). The study suggests adopting an integrated thinking approach grounded on “The Climate Governance Triangle” in the development of accounting and accountability tools to address climate issues (Brunelli et al , 2021).…”

Climate-related financial disclosure in integrated reporting: what is the impact on the business model? The case of Poste Italiane

“…Given this premise, it is interesting to assess companies’ approaches to addressing climate-related issues by integrating them into the business model to improve dialogue with different stakeholder groups and, therefore, to better manage legitimacy among them (Grassmann, 2021; Tamvada, 2020). Few studies have comprehensively explored the emerging and most debated issues of climate change accountability (Brunelli et al , 2021). Scholars mainly analyse governance- or process-related accountability regarding climate action, without providing a fully integrated overview of corporate strategies and processes that are useful for enhancing reputation and legitimacy through a growth path based on climate change risk management (Efimova et al , 2021).…”

“…Legitimacy theory has always been used to explain why companies report on their social and environmental performance (Deegan, 2019; Dumay et al , 2018). The growing attention of the market, the authorities and public opinion on disclosure that highlights the interdependencies between strategy, governance, operations and financial and socio-environmental performance (Abhayawansa et al , 2019; Dumay and Dai, 2017) has led to integrated accountability systems (Brunelli et al , 2021).…”

“…Given this premise, it is interesting to assess the approach of companies in defining and adopting business models, corporate strategies, corporate governance and non-financial reporting tools that may signal progress towards cultural transformation related to climate risk. Few studies have comprehensively explored the emerging and most debated issues regarding the need to implement corporate strategic and organisational transformation to create and maintain value for all stakeholders, as well as the opportunities associated with an optimal transition to low-carbon economies (Brunelli et al , 2021).…”