Sustainability Accounting and Reporting: An Ablative Reflexive Thematic Analysis of Climate Crisis via Conservative or Radical Reform Paradigms

Simon Huston ()
Additional contact information
Simon Huston: School of Economics, Finance and Accounting, Coventry University, Coventry CV1 5FB, UK

Sustainability, 2025, vol. 17, issue 11, 1-18

Abstract: Despite the climate crisis, a significant barrier to sustainability is limitations to the current accounting and reporting system. These deficiencies, mean the global financial system continues to invest trillions of dollars annually in environmentally sub-optimal projects. To catalyze the economic transition away from fossil-fuel and plastic configurations to more sustainable ones, sustainability accounting and reporting (SAR) is imperative. However, theoretical contention, pragmatic concerns, and costs stoke strong resistance to SAR. The research used ablative thematic analysis to apply hermeneutic phenomenology. First, it scanned the backdrop to the SAR problem and identified a corpus of recent literature from key associated institutions. The initial interpretation of the texts disentangled SAR’s conflicting threads and generated three themes of ‘climate crisis’ and ‘conservative’ or more ‘radical’ SAR reform paradigms. Iteratively harnessing these thematic lenses, the investigation re-examined the SAR literature corpus. The textual ‘dialogue’ generated understanding of the fragmented SAR responses to the climate crisis. Accordingly, the research reformulated its first theme to ‘dystopic climate crisis fragmentation’ and refined the other themes to take account of materiality and the split between Anglo-Saxon (IFRS, SSAB) or global (UN) and continental European accounting institutions (EU, GRI). Conservatives retain a single materiality investor-focus and concede only incremental standard improvements. Radicals seek to implement double materiality with a broader spectrum of stakeholders in mind. Both approaches have theoretical as well as pragmatic advantages and disadvantages, so the SAR contention rumbles on. Whilst the standard-setting landscape is evolving, disagreements remain. Its roots of contention are philosophical and pragmatic. Philosophically, radicals strive to temper libertarian anarcho-capitalist proclivities and broaden firm responsibility. Pragmatically, social, or environmental externalities are problematic to assign or measure. Given vested interests in the destructive status quo, it would be naïve to expect a harmonious SAR Ithaca to emerge anytime soon. Yet the challenges impel an intensification of SAR dialogue and concrete actions. Rather than a scientifically nomothetic contribution, the paper provides a qualitative, artful interpretation of a complex, contentious but crucial field.

Keywords: sustainability accounting and reporting; accounting standards; climate crisis; plastic pollution; ablative reflexive thematic analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/4943/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/4943/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:11:p:4943-:d:1666047

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().