Climate change-related regulatory disturbances and the accounting profession: longitudinal evidence from Australia

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a longitudinal, interview-based analysis of how climate regulation shapes professional boundaries, offering a nuanced view beyond reluctance or organizational barriers.

🏢実務担当者:Highlights the need for interdisciplinary upskilling and cross-professional collaboration to effectively manage climate risks and disclosure.

🏛政策担当者:Suggests that standardized disclosure alone may not shift technical expertise; policy should consider supporting interdisciplinary capacity building.

This study aims to examine how climate change regulatory disturbances shape the settlement between accountants and potentially competing professionals engaged in managing climate risks. Using an Abbott-Actor-Network Theory lens, the authors theorise regulation as an actant boundary object that mediates professional boundaries. This study analyse 54 interviews (2012–2018) with senior managers responsible for emissions risk management from 15 large Australian high emitters across three policy eras (National Greenhouse Gas Energy Reporting Act 2007 (NGERAct) reporting, carbon pricing and the post carbon tax repeal/TCFD period) to trace problematisation, interessement, enrolment and provisional settlement at the workplace level. The NGER Act standardised calculability and assurance of emissions data, enrolling accountants around controls and external reporting while engineers dominated technical measurement and target setting. The carbon tax re problematised climate issues in pecuniary terms, extending accountants’ roles into valuation, cost modelling and month end routines alongside those of engineers. In the post-carbon tax period, climate risk was reframed in financial risk and stability terms. The outcome is a cooperative but asymmetric settlement: accountants secure practical jurisdiction over controls, valuation and disclosure, applied science professionals retain cognitive control over targets and scenarios. For professional bodies, claims of broad climate leadership require interdisciplinary upskilling (particularly focused on measurement, uncertainty and long horizon planning) and strategies that build cross professional networks for competencies beyond mere disclosure. For firms and regulators, standardised risk-oriented disclosure sustains collaboration, but does not by itself transfer technical cognition away from engineering or other applied sciences. This study shows how regulation functions as a boundary object device that orchestrates collaboration and why it remains bounded, thereby qualifying prior explanations that emphasise reluctance or organisational barriers by specifying the material and epistemic constraints that calculative infrastructures embed.

• semanticscholar https://www.emerald.com/qram/article-pdf/doi/10.1108/QRAM-10-2023-0214/11162282/qram-10-2023-0214en.pdffirst seen 2026-05-05 21:44:55 · last seen 2026-08-02 06:29:17