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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors presents two approaches to financial reportig in the field of sustainable development. The general conclusion is that there should be the changes made in this area. this is another article presenting an important topic. However, I have a few comments, althoughI am aware of the limited size.

1. First of all, there are few recommendations in the article and,above all, tips on what should be changed in particular. After all,there are already regulations in the EU and many other countries regarding reporting.
2. There is also no assessment of the impact such changes on the climate. Therefore, the question arises - can such changes in regulations have any effective impact on sustainable development?
3. There is no wider background to the problem. Climate problems are not only changes in reporting. For now, it looks like those who introduce the expensive changes, they lose to those who do not care about the climate.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your engagement with my paper and useful feedback.  I have attempted to address your specific comments as indicated below.

COMMENT 1: First of all, there are few recommendations in the article and, above all, tips on what should be changed in particular. After all, there are already regulations in the EU and many other countries regarding reporting.  

RESPONSE 1: I have made some edits that strengthen the recommendations 

Reporting regulations in many  countries persist with a single materiality disclosure framework that, effectively, suppresses a more nuanced performance evaluation (495-497)

SAR reforms will involve, first, mandating stronger minimum standards and, shortly afterwards, providing more non-financial information to a wider spectrum of stakeholders (502-503)

COMMENT 2: There is also no assessment of the impact such changes on the climate. Therefore, the question arises - can such changes in regulations have any effective impact on sustainable development?

RESPONSE 2: I have noted challenges in modelling impacts of reforms

Likely, the cumulative impact of such reforms would be substantial although difficult to model because the outcome of regulatory negotiations and the extent of enforcement are unknowns.  (515-517)

COMMENT 3: There is no wider background to the problem. Climate problems are not only changes in reporting. For now, it looks like those who introduce the expensive changes, they lose to those who do not care about the climate.

RESPONSE 3: The wider impact is depicted in Fig 1 (Change in atmospheric carbon dioxide) and discussed in the text e.g., 53-59 'However, were all of Greenland’s ice sheet to melt, the rise could be as much as 7m!  ........From 2021 to 2022, global GHG emissions increased by 1.2 per cent.  Currently, emissions are likely around 57.1 - 57.4 gigatons of CO2 equivalent [9] (p. IV) [10] (p. XII).  

I have noted and now illustrate your point about the expense of alterations.  Unfortunately, capital markets can discount stocks of firms who invest to reduce their environmental impact compared to their less conscientious peers as illustrated by the recent relatively poor performance of British Petroleum compared to Shell. (501-504)

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am grateful for the opportunity to review this paper, which was already posted in the SSRN portal in 2022. The author could have also mentioned this fact in the article. Paper deals with an important topic on a scientific level. Sustainability accounting and reporting remains high on the agenda of many organizations, and likewise related research. 

The abstract is informative and well-written. The introduction gives all the needed information to readers acknowledging them with the field and purpose of the paper. 

The literature review draws on sources predominantly from before 2022, which is a shame, as a significant number of relevant articles have been published in the last three years that address various aspects related to the phenomenon, so the literature review is not comprehensive.

The author uses ablative, reflexive thematic analysis without coding, a method that has been frequently criticized in the last two years for congruence and potential subjectivity. The author could have explained a little better how he tried to avoid this and also mentioned this among the potential limitations in the conclusion.

The description of the research itself is also a challenge, as readers learn little about the corpus of documents analyzed and the texts used in the analysis, and how they were chosen. Otherwise, the research results are important and make a significant contribution to theoretical knowledge in the field under consideration.

The discussion is brief but critical and presents two important antipoles - conservatives and radicals - and their understanding of the problem. The conclusion also provides a philosophical contemplation and nicely rounds off the article.

Author Response

COMMENT 1  Draft version of article  already posted in the SSRN portal in 2022. The author could have also mentioned this fact in the article.  

REPLY 1: I have mentioned, previous SSRN draft article as you suggest.

Note: The current article updates a draft pre-print posted to the SSRN portal in 2022 (556)

COMMENT 2: The literature review draws on sources predominantly from before 2022, which is a shame, as a significant number of relevant articles have been published in the last three years that address various aspects related to the phenomenon, so the literature review is not comprehensive.

REPLY 2: I included a recent article on sustainability accounting

Parfitt, C. (2024). A foundation for ‘ethical capital’: The sustainability accounting standards board and integrated reporting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 98, 102477.

COMMENT 3: The author uses ablative, reflexive thematic analysis without coding, a method that has been frequently criticized in the last two years for congruence and potential subjectivity. The author could have explained a little better how he tried to avoid this and also mentioned this among the potential limitations in the conclusion.

REPLY 3: Thanks for the comment.  I have strengthened discussion on challenges with RTA supported by a citation, specifically:

Analysis incongruence by adopting procedural (checklist) quality practices [31].  Rather than worrying about subjectivity it must be managed. (149-150)

COMMENT 4: The description of the research itself is also a challenge, as readers learn little about the corpus of documents analyzed and the texts used in the analysis, and how they were chosen. Otherwise, the research results are important and make a significant contribution to theoretical knowledge in the field under consideration.

REPLY4: Thank you for the feedback and complementary comment.  As stated, the texts were chosen using Maxwell's  pragmatic literature approach.  Specifically:

The research reviewed the SAR backdrop to identify key global players, engaged in the SAR debate or practice.  Among the entities fulfilling these criteria were the United Nations Environment Programmes (UNEP, UNEP-FI), EU, GRI, SASB and IFRS. From these institutions, the study sourced recent literature (reports, public documents, academic articles, published reports and brochures or web pages) - the SAR corpus. (155-160)

COMMENT 5: The discussion is brief but critical and presents two important antipoles - conservatives and radicals - and their understanding of the problem. The conclusion also provides a philosophical contemplation and nicely rounds off the article.

REPLY 5:  Thank you.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although at first glance, the author addresses an interesting and topical topic with this manuscript, the presentation and structuring of which is appropriate for a scientific study, the plagiarism check revealed 63% similarities (see attached report). As a result, I consider that the paper cannot be reviewed in its entire structure.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

COMMENT 1: Although at first glance, the author addresses an interesting and topical topic with this manuscript, the presentation and structuring of which is appropriate for a scientific study, the plagiarism check revealed 63% similarities (see attached report). As a result, I consider that the paper cannot be reviewed in its entire structure.

REPLY 1:  Thank you for the feedback.  I would point out that the plagiarism checker has identified my own unpublished, draft pre-print hosted on SSRN platform. This is now transparently acknowledged in the footnote on 567.

Note: The current article updates a draft pre-print posted to the SSRN portal in 2022

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Abstract should not be the simple summary of introduction and/or conclusion. It should show the “unique” contribution and findings such as numerical results and its precise implications. Unfortunately, the paper just explain the importance of SAR over and over again! There is no theoretical and/or practical implications and suggestions at all in abstract. Thjerefore, I have to reject this conceptional paper due to the “lack of unique contributions.”
• Basically, I do agree with the author(s) for the importance of Measuring, Reporting, and Verifying (MRV) on the sustainability accounting. However, SAR in the paper is too abstract to get the universal consensus. “Ch.2 Materials and Methods” is too short to get the reliable process for SAR, and “Ch.3 Results” is just explanations of institutional accounting approaches “on the parallel way”. There is no comparative integration of all of these approaches, resulting in very simple, yet subjective SAR by the author. It is not convincing at all due to the “lack of logical structure.”
• The research approache should be more logically connected with all potential criteria among the global institutions, resulting in more reliable “global standard on the sustainability accounting” or at least the axiomic hypotheses for it. However, there are tooooo much logical missing links to utilize SAR suggested by the author.
• Therefore, I have to reject the paper due to the too much vageu, subjective arguments on the sustainability accounting.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable feedback.

COMMENT 1: 

Abstract should not be the simple summary of introduction and/or conclusion. It should show the “unique” contribution and findings such as numerical results and its precise implications.

REPLY 1: The abstract and conclusion explain that the paper's contribution is not descriptively scientific but by way of its qualitative artful interpretation of a complex, contentious but crucial field (34-35)

COMMENT 2: Unfortunately, the paper just explain the importance of SAR over and over again! There is no theoretical and/or practical implications and suggestions at all in abstract. Therefore, I have to reject this conceptional paper due to the “lack of unique contributions.”

REPLY2: The practical implication and suggestions in the paper include, for example.

SAR reforms will involve, first, mandating stronger minimum standards and, shortly afterwards, providing more non-financial information to a wider spectrum of stakeholders.  Currently, the SAR community seems split into two camps.  Conservatives seem to be shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic so to speak.  They may have some legitimate concerns about excessive bureaucratic and regulatory constraints and want to proceed prudently by initially developing standards that reflect enterprise value before extending the SAR remit to social or environmental considerations.  Grudgingly, conservative players now recognize that the direction of travel is towards double materiality but advocate for an incremental pathway. (518-526)

COMMENT 3: However, SAR in the paper is too abstract to get the universal consensus.

REPLY 3: I agree universal consensus is not forthcoming due to resistance to change by vested interests & likely adverse impact on stock valuations.  The paper highlights the contention and advocates for dialogue and gradual changes rather than seeking an impossible immediate consensus.

COMMENT 4: “Ch.2 Materials and Methods” is too short to get the reliable process for SAR

REPLY 4: I have expanded methods section to stress the qualitative nature of the paper

In a recent article, Braun and Clarke, warn against Thematic Reflexive Analysis incongruence by adopting procedural (checklist) quality practices [31].  Rather than worrying about subjectivity it must be managed. Ablation (Latin: ablātĭo) facilitates conceptualization of themes as patterns of subjective meaning central to a qualitative approach. (150-155)

COMMENT 5: Ch.3 Results” is just explanations of institutional accounting approaches “on the parallel way”. There is no comparative integration of all of these approaches, resulting in very simple, yet subjective SAR by the author. It is not convincing at all due to the “lack of logical structure.”

REPLY 5: Thank you for this criticism that I think is quite fair. However, the point of the paper was to highlight the complex messiness and incongruities of the different organisations.  I do agree that it is too descriptive but, despite the fragmented  institutional context, the paper generates its key insights that help stakeholders interpret the sub-optimal situation.

COMMENT 6: The research approach should be more logically connected with all potential criteria among the global institutions, resulting in more reliable “global standard on the sustainability accounting” or at least the axiomic hypotheses for it. However, there are too much logical missing links to utilize SAR suggested by the author.  Therefore, I have to reject the paper due to the too much vague, subjective arguments on the sustainability accounting.

REPLY 6: Thank you for your useful feedback.  I do agree that a more rigorous and systematic review of the corpus of institutional literature could generate further insights but I have now included this limitation and suggestions for further research.

A limitation of the research was that its review of the corpus of institutional literature failed to generate any reliable global standards for sustainability accounting or even the axiomic hypotheses needed for them.  Future research might extend the literature review and achieve this objective.  Despite its limitations, the SAR research intimates the need for reforms that must involve, first, mandating stronger minimum standards and, shortly afterwards, providing more non-financial information to a wider spectrum of stakeholders.  (518-523)

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.This paper is interesting and timely for investigating sustainable accounting and reporting in the context of the climate crisis. In order to carry out this study, its author used ablative thematic analysis to apply hermeneutic phenomenology. Through a philosophical and pragmatic approach to the consulted scientific literature, the paper represents a qualitative interpretation of an extremely complex and controversial field, but vital to the current moment.
The strengths of this paper are represented by the complex analysis of the conceptual - theoretical framework resulting from the studies consulted in the investigated field, the methodology used and the presentation of the results using the exemplary philosophical and pragmatic interpretation.
I have not identified any weaknesses of this paper.
In my opinion, the novel elements brought by this study are represented by the philosophical interpretation of sustainable accounting and reporting, unlike other studies that contain more practical approaches.
2. The paper presents an adequate and consistent structure of a scientific study that offers a qualitative interpretation of sustainability accounting and reporting based on the ablative reflexive thematic analysis of the climate crisis, under the conditions of conservative or radical reform paradigms.
3. The materials and methods section briefly presents hermeneutic phenomenology using ablative, reflexive thematic analysis (ARTA).

4.The results section was achieved through a creative and active process, through questioning and phenomenological textual analysis of the hermeneutic corpus that generated the themes for the SAR, namely: the climate crisis, the conservative approach and the radical perspectives.

5. The discussion section briefly presents personal opinions on the study, its limits and future research trends in the investigated field.

6. The conclusions of the study highlight the need to reform the sustainability accounting and reporting (SAR) frameworks in the context of climate change, pollution and anthropogenic intensification, under the conditions of an intelligent interpretation that would contribute substantially to the development of the researched field.

7. The bibliographical sources are up-to-date and relevant (they contain representative works from the last 5 years).

8. The content of the figures presented is correct and real, with important information resulting from the specific literature on the theme addressed in the paper.

9. In addition to all the positive aspects present in the paper, I have identified one aspect that needs to be corrected, namely in section 3 the name will be Results and the content of the paragraph: The research then scanned the distilled corpus, seeking to disentangle its conflicting threads and establish some coherence between opposing narratives. The researcher subjectivity anchored the ARTA approach which is not a scientifically descriptive but rather an ‘artfully interpretative’ nd situated reflexive process [34] will be placed before the first paragraph: In a creative and active process, simplification, questioning and corpus hermeneutic phenomenological textual analysis (subjective reflection and interpretation) generated three initial SAR themes:........

Author Response

Thank you kindly for your positive feedback.  I have actioned your point 9 as required:

To rename section 3 as Results and include in the paragraph content: The research then scanned the distilled corpus, seeking to disentangle its conflicting threads and establish some coherence between opposing narratives. The researcher subjectivity anchored the ARTA approach which is not a scientifically descriptive but rather an ‘artfully interpretative’ nd situated reflexive process [34] will be placed before the first paragraph: In a creative and active process, simplification, questioning and corpus hermeneutic phenomenological textual analysis (subjective reflection and interpretation) generated three initial SAR themes.

Sincerely, Simon

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the response on the comments. However, most of responses are just excuse, and not much "change" of the logical structure. The author(s) just changed very little bit of sentences with much more jargons, difficult to catch the ideas. There are lots of major disucssion in Chapter 3, which is core of this paper. But it is just simple "narative" rather than analytic. The author(s) never "compare" between institional definition of SAR. Most of parts are too much subjective with logical missing links. 

Therefore, due to the terrible attitude on the comments by the reviwers, I have to reject the paper again.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

After the revision, the paper has too mcuh jargons, and some parts are not readable for the global readers. I strongly recommend the "professional Englihs Proofreading Service" to enhance the reliablility of not only English grammar, but the logical structure as well.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for your kind feedback.  I understand your frustrations with the limitations of this qualitative research.  I can only emphasise that this paper’s contribution is its 'artful interpretation' that helps stakeholders navigate a complex, contentious but crucial field' (587).

COMMENT 1: Most of responses are just excuse, and not much "change" of the logical structure. The author(s) just changed very little bit of sentences with much more jargons, difficult to catch the ideas.

RESPONSE 1: I have made more substantive alterations to the article to improve its logical structure.  I have attempted to limit jargon without compromising nuanced complexity of the field and qualitative research ideas.

COMMENT 2: Chapter 3, which is core of this paper. But it is just simple "narative" rather than analytic. The author(s) never "compare" between institional definition of SAR. Most of parts are too much subjective with logical missing links. 

RESPONSE 2: I appreciate your frustration with the lack of any theoretical modelling but the inductive qualitative approach is deliberately not analytical (aka rather than 'top-down from' hypothesis to statistically testable predications) it is built up from inductive 'leaps' based on few cases.  The idiographic approach makes no claims about generalisability.  Rather, it provides a rich, contextualized understanding and shapes opinions.  I  agree with you that the article might benefit from more logical links to explain its hermeneutics (textual interpretation) with reflections on philosophy, language, history, and practical accounting examples and have now included this suggestion in the article's limitations (533-537)

COMMENT 3:  After the revision, the paper has too mcuh jargons, and some parts are not readable for the global readers. I strongly recommend the "professional Englihs Proofreading Service" to enhance the reliablility of not only English grammar, but the logical structure as well.   RESPONSE 3: I have made more edits to improve the legibility and credibility of the article.  I think it is now reasonably accessible without grammatical flaws and makes a useful contribution in a crucial area for sustainable business.      

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have a very uncomfortable to determine the revised paper, because the authors can significantly improve their contribution evwn with simple comparison of the SAR among the global institutions in terms of their common factors and unique factors. Nonetheless, the author did not show any efforts to "compare" the other SAR models. I strongly request the comparison is "necessary", not complementary.  Do not make excuse, but show the changed sentences as much as possible!

Author Response

Thank you for your kind feedback.  Please find below my responses.

COMMENT 1: You can improve contribution with a simple comparison of the SAR among the global institutions in terms of their common factors and unique factors. Nonetheless, the author did not show any efforts to "compare" the other SAR models. 

RESPONSE 1: I have strengthened comparisons between SAR approaches of various standard setters.  For example, the IFRS admits that,  ‘reporting could better explain how climate-related issues are systematically integrated into the investment process’ and 'Investors increasingly expect information on climate-related issues to be reflected in the financial statements and auditors to challenge and test management’s assumptions’ [46] (p.12).  (324-328)

Re EU, 'companies must now report on social, employee and environmental matters, human rights, bribery, and corruption.  EFRAG provides Technical Advice to the European Commission, drafts European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), and, where there is disagreement, liaises with the IFRS.' (432-434)

'EU companies must now report on social, employee and environmental matters, human rights, bribery, and corruption.  EFRAG provides Technical Advice to the European Commission, drafts European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), and, where there is disagreement, liaises with the IFRS.' (474-478)

In the conclusion, 'Nevertheless, the SAR landscape evolves. In 2023, IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards, developed by ISSB, requires entities to disclose material information about sustainability-related risks and opportunities.  Despite agreement between reporting bodies on the need for SAR standards, opposing ....'

The paper therefore does compare SAR among the global institutions in terms of their common factor (need for more sustainability reporting) and unique factors (disagreement on double materiality). I hope that I have now demonstrated a reasonable effort to compare SAR models.   Thank you for your help in making changes that have improved my article.