GHG Accounting and Gendered Carbon Accountability in a Shipping Agency: A Single-Case Study with Ethnographic Elements

Abstract

This study examines how gender dynamics shape greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting and carbon accountability in a Mediterranean maritime agency. It adopts an interpretive single-case study design with ethnographic elements, combining interviews, document analysis, and direct observations derived from insider access. The results reveal that digitalization strengthens the technical capacity for carbon accounting, particularly for Scopes 1 and 2, by making data more traceable and auditable through ERP and principal-mandated systems. Empirically, the study finds that women perform most of the carbon data work, compiling, reconciling, and uploading approximately 80% of emissions-related information, yet hold limited decision rights over strategic boundary setting and KPI definition. This imbalance highlights how operational reliability depends on gendered divisions of labor, while strategic accountability remains constrained by hierarchical decision structures. The study reframes carbon accountability as a gendered organizational practice, advancing debates on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 13 (Climate Action) in shipping. It also proposes a gender-inclusive accountability framework, including a Responsible–Accountable–Consulted–Informed (RACI) matrix with gender overlays, contractual/Application Programming Interface (API) exchanges for Scope 3, and participatory system design, and discusses implications for principals and port authorities. The findings contribute to critical and interpretive accounting by distinguishing operational from strategic accountability and demonstrating how the distribution of voice and authority conditions decarbonization credibility and effectiveness.

1. Introduction

The maritime industry is undergoing profound transformations under intensifying environmental, technological, and social pressures. Global shipping is responsible for approximately three percent of total annual greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, primarily from fuel combustion during international voyages and decarbonization in this sector is recognized as crucial to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement [1]. Structural changes in logistics and the evolving role of port authorities and shipping agencies highlight the urgent need for actors to assume new responsibilities, including the systematic adoption of GHG accounting and carbon accountability practices [2].

In the last two decades, significant scholarly attention has been devoted to understanding how container shipping firms develop logistics service capabilities, technological and innovation competencies, and supply chain integration to enhance performance and competitiveness [3,4]. These studies reveal that organizational capabilities and strategic orientation strongly affect maritime efficiency and competitiveness. However, while the operational and technological dimensions of the shipping industry have been extensively researched, socio-organizational aspects of sustainability remain underexplored, particularly the intersection between environmental accountability and gender equality.

Recent scholarship increasingly recognizes that climate change and gender are interdependent phenomena shaped by socio-organizational mechanisms. GHG emissions are not only the outcome of technological and economic processes but also the result of institutional arrangements that determine how decisions are made, whose expertise is valued, and how environmental responsibilities are distributed. In maritime and logistics organizations, gendered divisions of labor and unequal access to decision-making roles influence how environmental data are produced, validated, and interpreted [5,6,7,8]. Gendered power relations can thus shape both the generation and the use of carbon information, influencing the reliability and credibility of decarbonization and sustainability practices [8,9]. In this sense, integrating gender-sensitive perspectives into GHG accounting and accountability is not only a matter of equity but also a condition for improving the transparency, completeness, and legitimacy of sustainability reporting, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

In recent years, accountability research has increasingly examined how environmental and social objectives are integrated into business models [9,10,11]. Within this growing body of work, carbon accounting has become central to understanding how organizations measure, report, and justify their decarbonization efforts [12,13]. Yet, these studies have largely treated accountability as a technical or managerial process, paying limited attention to how organizational structures, power relations, and gender dynamics shape what is counted and who counts. At the same time, research on maritime sustainability has highlighted the critical role of digitalization and port–ship coordination in enabling traceable, data-driven accountability systems [14,15]. However, little is known about how such digital infrastructures interact with gendered divisions of labor, particularly in contexts where women produce data while men retain decision-rights.

Against this background, this study asks: How do gender dynamics shape GHG accounting and carbon accountability within a maritime agency, and how do digital systems enable or constrain these practices over time?

To explore this research question, an ethnographic single-case study methodology is adopted. Case study research is particularly suited to investigating complex organizational phenomena where social, environmental, and institutional factors intertwine [16]. In line with recent methodological debates, we acknowledge the value of comparative and multi-level perspectives that examine interactions across organizational, sectoral, and policy scales [17]. Nonetheless, the single-case design adopted here offers depth and contextual richness and, as Siggelkow [18] argues, a carefully developed case study can persuasively demonstrate theoretical contributions. By focusing on a maritime agency operating in Naples (Italy), this study provides a thick description of how accountability processes are enacted and how gender dynamics influence their effectiveness. Empirical material was generated through semi-structured interviews with managerial and technical staff, document analysis of environmental reports, and observation of sustainability-related practices. Moreover, one of the authors, as a long-standing board member directly engaged in managing cargo information flows in the Port of Naples, offered prolonged insider access that enriched the ethnographic analysis.

The originality of this study lies in its dual contribution. First, it extends the literature on maritime sustainability and decarbonization by examining how environmental accountability practices intersect with gender equality (SDG 5) and contribute to the pursuit of SDG 13 (Climate Action). This perspective emphasizes that gender-inclusive decision-making and equitable participation can enhance the credibility and effectiveness of decarbonization efforts in shipping [19,20,21]. Second, it contributes to the broader accountability literature by empirically demonstrating how gendered structures shape carbon accountability. More specifically, this study distinguishes between operational and strategic carbon accountability, and theorizes how external mandates and gendered decision rights moderate the transition between them; it provides an insider ethnography of a maritime agency at the ship-port interface, highlighting who produces calculability and who sets boundaries; and offers a gender-inclusive accountability framework, a Responsible–Accountable–Consulted–Informed (RACI) matrix with gender overlays, contractual/Application Programming Interface (API) exchanges for Scope 3, and assurance mechanisms for breadth and inclusiveness, with implications for SDG 5 and SDG 13.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature on carbon accounting, digitalization, and gender equality in the maritime sector. Section 3 outlines the ethnographic case study methodology and discusses issues of insider access, reflexivity, and data analysis. Section 4 presents the empirical findings across four thematic dimensions. Section 5 develops a discussion by articulating a mechanism linking digital infrastructures, gendered organizations, and accountability practices, and highlights theoretical, methodological, and practical contributions. Section 6 concludes by summarizing key insights, drawing implications for policy and industry, and suggesting avenues for future research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Carbon Accounting and Accountability in Maritime Sustainability

The maritime industry, one of the backbones of global trade, has been central to sustainability debates because of its material contribution to GHG emissions [1]. Within this context, carbon accounting and accountability have become pivotal for net-zero trajectories and for maintaining legitimacy with regulators and stakeholders [22]. Classical strands of research have prioritized operational efficiency, logistics optimization, and structural changes in port and shipping management [3,4], thereby advancing understanding of competitiveness and service integration while concentrating largely on technical and economic dimensions.

More recent scholarship reframes accountability as a multidimensional construct that integrates measurement, disclosure, and governance. Sustainability accounting research emphasizes that carbon accounting is not merely a technical tool but a social and organizational practice [23,24]. Critical/interpretive studies further underscore that accountability is embedded in relations of power, identity, and institutional norms [25,26]. Policy and industry debates likewise highlight that sustainability outcomes are shaped by leadership and inclusiveness in decision-making bodies [27], consistent with broader corporate sustainability work linking environmental accountability to corporate social responsibility and long-term stakeholder trust [28,29].

In the shipping domain, emerging frameworks such as sustainable shipping management identify critical success factors for balancing efficiency, compliance, and responsibility [30], while corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives are connected to seafarer welfare and wider human sustainability concerns [31], indicating that accountability extends beyond emissions reporting. Nevertheless, a clear gap remains. The empirical literature on carbon accountability in maritime agencies is fragmented: qualitative case studies and reviews predominate, yielding rich contextual insights but leaving both the operationalization of accountability frameworks in agency settings and the ways such practices are socially constructed and governed under-specified. This gap motivates fine-grained inquiry capable of tracing how measurement routines, organizational roles, and decision rights interact in practice, an analytical space where an ethnographic single-case design can reveal mechanisms that broader, less granular designs seldom capture.

Nevertheless, a clear knowledge gap remains. While maritime sustainability research has advanced substantially in operational efficiency and emissions quantification, little attention has been paid to how carbon accountability practices are socially and institutionally constructed. Existing empirical work focuses predominantly on technical indicators, regulatory compliance, and performance outcomes [32,33], leaving the organizational micro-dynamics that shape how GHG data are produced, verified, and used largely unexplored. In particular, the social dimension of accountability, who performs carbon measurement, whose interpretations count, and how authority over environmental disclosure is distributed, has not been adequately theorized [13,34]. These omissions are significant, as recent studies in sustainability accounting demonstrate that emissions accounting is not a neutral calculative process but one embedded in professional identities, hierarchies, and power relations [12,35]. The maritime sector, characterized by gendered labor divisions and historically male-dominated governance structures [36,37], provides an ideal empirical setting to investigate how such structures shape the enactment of carbon accountability.

2.2. Digitalization, Innovation, and the Transformation of Accountability

Technological innovation plays a critical role in shaping accountability in the shipping and logistics sectors. Digitalization and artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly conceptualized as enablers of accountability in Supply Chain Management (SCM) by enhancing data transparency, predictive analytics, and reporting. In the shipping industry, blockchain and other emerging technologies have been presented to enhance traceability and credibility in GHG reporting while simultaneously opening avenues for inclusivity and gender equality [38]. These developments align with broader calls for socio-technical transitions across critical domains such as aviation, shipping, and road freight [1].

From a critical/interpretive perspective, however, digitalization is not a neutral enabler. It is infused with organizational cultures, routines, and power relations [39,40]. The ongoing decarbonization, digitalization, and automation of shipping are interdependent with challenges of leadership diversity and inclusiveness [27]. Consequently, technological infrastructures can create new capacities while also reproducing existing asymmetries, making inclusive governance essential to translate digital advances into transparent and equitable accountability practices. In sum, the role of digitalization is twofold. It strengthens firms’ technical capacity to produce reliable carbon data, and it provides a socio-organizational infrastructure through which environmental and social accountability can be integrated into stakeholder engagement and governance. While organizational structures for environmental management existed before the digital transformation, they were often fragmented, paper-based, and poorly integrated across departments and functions [41,42]. Digitalization does not generate new accountability mechanisms ex nihilo; rather, it reconfigures established routines by embedding them within data-driven, socio-technical infrastructures. Therefore, digital systems can increase transparency in accountability practices while also altering how decision authority, visibility, and control are allocated among organizational actors [43]. In this sense, the notion of a socio-organizational infrastructure refers to the hybrid system of technological tools, formal routines, and social arrangements through which information is produced, validated, and governed [44,45]. This infrastructure directly relates to our research question because it mediates who performs and oversees carbon accounting tasks, whose interpretations prevail when discrepancies occur, and how gendered power relations are reproduced or challenged through digital tools. Hence, digitalization is not a substitute for organizational accountability, but a context in which accountability practices, and the gendered allocation of voice and responsibility, become more visible and contested.

2.3. Gender Equality and Carbon Accountability

Within sustainability accounting and accountability scholarship, gender is recognized as a constitutive element of how organizational control, responsibility, and legitimacy are produced [46,47,48]. Gendered hierarchies influence who measures and reports environmental performance, whose interpretations are legitimized within disclosure processes, and whose priorities shape strategic responses to decarbonization [47,49]. Critical research highlights that gendered divisions of labor persist within accounting. Specifically, women are frequently channeled into administrative, routine or compliance-oriented roles that emphasize accuracy and procedural reliability, while men continue to dominate strategic, decision-making and boundary-setting positions that define organizational accountability and resource allocation. Moreover, gendered patterns of visibility within reporting systems reinforce these structural inequalities, as the discursive forms used in accountability statements often privilege male-associated perspectives and expertise [50,51,52,53]. Such occupational segregation has implications for the inclusiveness and credibility of sustainability reporting, as unequal access to decision arenas constrains how environmental information is interpreted and acted upon.

Recent empirical research shows that gender diversity in leadership and governance bodies enhances the quality and credibility of environmental disclosures, strengthens stakeholder engagement processes, and supports more innovative and forward-looking approaches to carbon mitigation. Evidence from sustainability reporting, critical gender studies in accounting, and recent investigations into board diversity and carbon-related financial strategies indicates that diverse governance structures tend to promote stronger accountability orientations and more proactive environmental decision-making [47,54,55,56]. Although gendered patterns of responsibility and authority have long characterized managerial and operational roles in the maritime sector, these dynamics remain underexamined. Recent studies highlight persistent inequalities in port governance structures and barriers that continue to constrain women’s participation and progression in maritime careers [57]. Therefore, examining gendered accountability within carbon accounting is relevant for understanding how power, expertise, and voice shape the production and interpretation of GHG data, and how greater gender inclusiveness can improve both the legitimacy and effectiveness of sustainable governance.

A growing body of research highlights the need to integrate gender equality into sustainability and decarbonization strategies in shipping. While sustainability and gender are deeply interlinked, gender equality in carbon accountability remains underdeveloped. Critical accounting studies contend that sustainability is inherently gendered because accountability processes reflect and reproduce existing power relations [7,47]. Empirical evidence underlines persistent barriers in the maritime sector: according to the Global Maritime Forum [27], 68% of women in leadership positions report barriers related to gender or identity, compared with 33% of men, including stereotypes about reliability, discriminatory role assignment, exclusion from informal networks, and harassment. Reviews of gender in accounting research confirm that women remain underrepresented in professional practice and scholarship, with implications for diversity and inclusiveness in governance [49,52]. Empirical studies further highlight that gender diversity on boards and committees enhances sustainable reporting and accountability outcomes [54,58], while research in corporate contexts links gender equality to innovation and to stronger connections between accountability and long-term organizational legitimacy [8,30,59]. Within maritime industries, studies document the underrepresentation of women in leadership and decision-making roles [60]. Barreiro-Gen et al. [56] highlight that gender equality frameworks for ports remain largely conceptual, calling for further empirical inquiry. Similarly, Kotze and Bohler-Muller [61] argue that ocean accounting risks reproducing gendered exclusions unless inclusivity is deliberately embedded. Despite these contributions, research on shipping and port sustainability continues to privilege technological and economic analyses over socio-organizational factors. Qualitative work has enlightened corporate responsibility, the welfare of seafarers, and organizational transformation. There are a few studies that distinctly merge gender with carbon accountability in maritime agencies. This has been a perennial gap that does not offer sufficient attention to how gender dynamics inject accountability practices, power distribution, and organizational effectiveness.

2.4. Toward a Gender-Inclusive Accountability Framework in Maritime Agencies

Building on the reviewed literature, this study adopts the combined lens of firm accountability and gendered organizations [23,47]. This theoretical integration allows us to conceptualize accountability not as a neutral or purely technical practice, but as a socially constructed process shaped by institutional norms, stakeholder expectations, and hierarchical relations within organizations. This means that, for maritime, GHG accounting agencies become a phenomenon embedded in gendered cultures of decision-making and authority.

From the review, three research gaps emerge. First, while shipping decarbonization and sustainability accounting are exhaustively investigated [1,30], integrating gender equality into carbon accountability has not been adequately addressed. Second, although digitalization is theoretically acknowledged as a transformative enabler of accountability [62], its interface with gendered organizational structures has not been adequately brought to the fore. Third, there is a paucity of empirical studies that jointly examine the environmental, digital, and gender inclusiveness of maritime agencies.

At the same time, diversifying leadership is increasingly considered as one of the key conditions for an organization to be resilient, competitive, and capable of managing the transitions of decarbonization and digitalization [27]. This very fact brings out the urgent necessity of a gender-inclusive maritime agency accountability framework that would put not only technical routines but also organizational cultures at the center of GHG accounting, where these cultures are characterized by the valuing and institutionalizing of diversity. To close these holes, this research implements an ethnographic single-case design, which is in line with the critical/interpretative accounting tradition [25,47,63]. The chosen orientation allows the team to carry out an in-depth, reflexive examination of the practical performance of taking accountability and how gender dynamics affect these processes, thereby opening a broad and solid ground for conceptualizing the organization of accountability as the experience of the organization rather than one of the neutral systems. Hence, we adopt an insider-supported ethnography to observe boundary setting in situ.

3. Materials and Methods

This study is designed as an ethnographic single-case study of Marinter Shipping Agency Srl, a leading maritime agency operating in the Port of Naples, Naples, Italy. Case study research is particularly suited to investigating contemporary organizational phenomena in their real-life context [16,64]. In accounting and management studies, case designs allow scholars to capture complex dynamics, governance, accountability, and organizational change that cannot be adequately understood through quantitative approaches [65,66].

Building on this tradition, we adopt an ethnographic lens that emphasizes immersion, lived experience, and contextual interpretation [67,68,69,70], consistent with prior research showing how everyday routines, power relations, and cultural norms shape accountability practices [71].

This study adopts an interpretive single-case study design with ethnographic elements rather than a full ethnography. It combines semi-structured interviews, internal document analysis, and direct on-site observations made possible through insider access. Following Alvesson and Kärreman [71] and Gioia et al. [72], the research employs an abductive logic that iteratively connects empirical insights with theoretical constructs. The ethnographic elements refer to the prolonged familiarity of one author with the organization, which enabled access to rich contextual knowledge and observation of everyday practices [73,74]. However, consistent with methodological transparency, the study does not claim immersive participant observation in the anthropological sense. Instead, it applies ethnographic sensitivity to understand the gendered interactions shaping accountability practices in their natural organizational context.

We conducted prolonged immersion over six months (15 February 2025–15 August 2025), observing routine cycles (monthly closures, operational reporting, and meetings) in participant and non-participant modes. Within the critical/interpretive accounting tradition [25,40,47], accountability is not treated as a neutral mechanism but as a practice embedded in relations of power, identity, and representation.

‘Insider access’ is a main point of the research layout. One of the authors (from now on, the insider author), is an executive and a board member of Marinter Shipping Agency Srl, where she has been working for almost twenty years. Her job is to design and control the flow of information related to the movement of containers in and out of the Port of Naples. Therefore, her position allowed her prolonged engagement, direct observation, and access to the firm’s artifacts and talks, which are usually at a distance from the view of external researchers, in accordance with the ethnographic accounting research on positionality and situated knowledge [75,76]. To mitigate potential insider bias, the other author (A.D.V.) led the overall research design, developed the interview protocols, and oversaw triangulation and interpretive validation; moreover, tasks with higher risk of bias (e.g., observing or interviewing the insider author’s direct reports, and adjudicating interpretive claims that drew on privileged access) were conducted or overseen by A.D.V. while the insider author’s contributions were documented and cross-checked against independent sources (meeting minutes, digital exports, and fieldnotes). This division of labor preserved the advantages of insider access while maintaining interpretive independence. Hence, the study continues the tradition of ethnographic accounting research in which insider perspectives reveal the intricate relationship of accountability, organizational culture, and gendered issues, while overt protective mechanisms maintain rigor [70,74,75,76].

3.1. Case Selection and Context

Marinter Shipping Agency S.r.l. is a medium-sized maritime service provider headquartered in Naples, Italy. Established in 1986, the company operates as a multi-firm agency and manages vessel-related operations, documentation flows, and regulatory compliance for international shipping clients. Publicly available business records indicate that Marinter employs approximately five staff members and reported a turnover of around €2.46 million in 2024 [77,78,79]. These structural characteristics make Marinter representative of the small-to-medium agencies that constitute the operational backbone of Mediterranean port ecosystems, where digitalized reporting routines and gendered divisions of labor are typically embedded in day-to-day service coordination. The firm manages complex ship-port interface processes and has progressively digitalized its operations, adopting platforms such as TeamSystem Enterprise, Navision, PMIS, Afsys, Global OA, and Hyperion. These systems support financial reporting, bookings, invoicing, and data integration with global shipping principals.

This case is theoretically relevant for three reasons. First, the agency occupies a key position in the shipping network where its operations significantly affect carbon emissions, both from its own energy use (Scope 2) and from certain activities in its wider value chain (Scope 3). According to the GHG Protocol [80] Scope 2 refers to indirect emissions from purchased electricity and energy consumption, while Scope 3 covers other indirect emissions that occur across the value chain, including outsourced logistics, business travel, and supplier-related activities. The agency’s decision-making directly affects these emission categories. For Scope 2, operational choices such as office energy efficiency, digital system management, and electricity procurement determine indirect emissions from purchased power. For Scope 3, managerial and contractual decisions, such as the selection of forwarding partners, coordination with shipowners, and digital data exchanges-shape how emissions from outsourced and upstream logistics are recorded, shared, and mitigated. These interactions make the case analytically relevant for examining how accountability, technology, and gendered decision rights intersect in maritime carbon management. Second, it has undergone substantial digital transformation, integrating multiple platforms and data-management systems. Third, the firm presents a gendered structure, with women concentrated in accounting and financial management roles and men dominating executive decision-making. This configuration makes the site especially suited to examine the intersection of gender, digital infrastructures, and carbon accountability, consistent with critical calls for more inclusive approaches to sustainability [26,47].

Compared to other maritime agencies operating in the Port of Naples, i.e., Bucci, F.lli Cosulich, Greco Mare, PSL Group, and Saimarel, Marinter Shipping Agency Srl stands out for its multi-mandate structure, diversified business areas (ship assistance, container cargo management, and integrated logistics), and a fully female accounting department led by a female CFO. While most competitors are monomandate or male-dominated, Marinter’s hybrid governance structure (50% ownership in Yang Ming Napoli Srl) and long-standing operational independence offer a unique context for examining how gendered labor and accountability interact in practice. This distinctive configuration, combined with the insider author’s two decades of industry experience, makes Marinter Shipping Agency Srl an analytically rich case for studying gender-inclusive carbon accountability in the maritime sector. Compared to other maritime agencies operating in the Port of Naples, such as Bucci, F.lli Cosulich, Greco Mare, PSL Group, and Saimare, Marinter Shipping Agency Srl stands out for its hybrid governance structure, diversified business areas, and gender composition. The official list of maritime agencies active in the Port of Naples is available through Assoagenti Campania [79]. While most agencies in the container shipping segment are single-mandate and predominantly male-managed, Marinter Shipping Agency Srl operates through a distinctive ownership model: it holds 50% of Yang Ming (Napoli) Srl, while the remaining 50% is owned by Yang Ming (Italy) Spa, linked to the Taiwanese carrier Yang Ming Marine Transport Corporation, ranked ninth globally by Alphaliner. Marinter Shipping Agency Srl’s unique structure, combining local autonomy with international partnership, grants it independent decision-making power, including full authority over recruitment personnel. Unlike its competitors, Marinter Shipping Agency Srl has deliberately established a fully female accounting department led by a female CFO, reflecting a strategic choice aligned with its corporate culture and governance. This configuration provides a distinctive empirical context for examining how gendered organizational structures and accountability practices interact within the maritime sector.

In line with the GHG Protocol [80], Scope 3 emissions were defined as indirect emissions arising from activities not directly controlled by the agency but occurring within its broader value chain. Given the operational boundaries of Marinter Shipping Agency Srl, the analysis focused on those categories that could be meaningfully traced through available data and contractual relationships, specifically: (i) upstream logistics services procured from forwarding partners, (ii) business travel and outsourced office services, and (iii) downstream coordination with shipowners for container transport. Measurement relied on activity data extracted from ERP and principal-mandated systems (e.g., fuel invoices, shipment volumes, and service records) combined with emission factors from national databases [81], and, where unavailable, conservative estimates based on standardized templates provided by the principal. Categories outside the agency’s direct operational reach, such as upstream capital goods and customer use of sold products, were excluded, consistent with the reporting boundaries defined under the GHG Protocol’s “control” approach. This methodological delimitation reflects the agency’s limited leverage over external actors while maintaining the integrity and transparency of the carbon accounting process.

3.2. Data Collection

In line with ethnographic principles of immersion, triangulation, and reflexivity [82,83,84,85,86,87,88], we used a variety of complementary sources of evidence. As described in

Table 1. Overview of Interviews Conducted.

Interviewee/Role	No. of Sessions	Total Duration (min)	Main Themes Covered	Dimensions (Economic, Social, Environmental)
Managing Director (Board Member)	2	120 (75; 45)	Organizational strategy; governance; accountability mechanisms; gender in decision-making; digitalization trajectory	✔ Economic ✔ Social ✔ Environmental
Chief Financial Officer (CFO)	2	110 (60; 50)	GHG accounting; ERP and e-invoicing; finance-driven sustainability; gender composition in accounting	✔ Economic ✔ Social ✔ Environmental
Chief Operating Officer (COO)	1	65	Operational reporting; Afsys and Global OA; accountability towards principals; gendered allocation of tasks	✔ Economic ✔ Social ✔ Environmental
HR/Compliance Officer	1	45	Recruitment, training, promotion policies; inclusive practices; gender and sustainability linkages	✔ Social ✔ Environmental
Finance and Operations Staff (mixed group)	5	200 (avg. 40)	Daily use of systems; data collection and reporting routines; perceptions of gender equality and accountability	✔ Economic ✔ Social ✔ Environmental

Source: authors processing.

, we carried out semi-structured interviews with the Managing Director, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Chief Operating Officer (each 50–75 min). Further sessions were held with the finance staff, operations personnel, and the HR/Compliance function (average 40–60 min). In total, the interview material amounted to approximately 540 min (Table 1). Most sessions were conducted with accounting and operations staff, reflecting their central involvement in carbon data management and digital reporting routines.

Interviews examined the establishment and execution of GHG accounting practices, the use of accountability mechanisms, gender representation, and the involvement of digital technologies. All interviews were held in person, audio-recorded with consent, and transcribed verbatim.

To ensure full transparency, we clarify that although the Managing Director and the insider author share the same family name, no direct familial relationship exists between them. Nonetheless, to eliminate any potential perception of bias, all interactions with the Managing Director were handled exclusively by the external academic author (A.D.V.), who conducted the interviews independently and verified the transcripts, interpretations, and triangulations against documentary sources. This arrangement ensured interpretive independence and procedural neutrality throughout the study.

To reduce the risk of insider bias, an interview protocol was created and tested by the other author (A.D.V.). Interviews with the insider author’s direct reports were conducted by A.D.V., and all transcripts were compared with field notes and organizational artifacts by the same team.

This ethnographic dimension was reinforced through participant and non-participant observation. As the insider author documented day-to-day practices, from monthly accounting closures to operational reporting routines, capturing how gendered roles and digital tools interact in practice. To reduce risks of over-familiarity, the other author (A.D.V.) conducted complementary shadowing sessions, observing meetings, digital workflows, and reporting activities, and served as an independent counterpoint to insider observations. After each session, we compiled structured fieldnotes using a standard template (date/time, setting, actors, sequence of events, short verbatim, researcher reflections, emergent codes). Notes captured: (i) verbatim extracts (e.g., remarks about deadline pressure during Hyperion uploads), (ii) interactional dynamics (turn-taking, interruptions), and (iii) material traces (dashboards, checklists, email prompts). Fieldnotes produced by the insider author were reviewed by A.D.V. for potential over-familiarity; divergences were logged and discussed in peer-debrief sessions and reconciled in the audit trail.

Immediately below,

Table 2. Questionnaire Overview.

Section	Example Items (Likert Scale)	Purpose
Data quality and responsibility	“The data we provide for sustainability and carbon reporting are complete and accurate.” “Responsibilities for sustainability-related data are clear and well defined.”	Assess robustness of reporting processes
Training and digital systems	“I have received adequate training to use the digital systems that support reporting.”	Evaluate capacity-building and inclusivity in digitalization
Gender inclusivity	“Women and men in this organization have equal opportunities to access training and projects.” “Women have equal influence on decisions regarding reporting.”	Capture perceptions of gendered participation in accountability
Organizational climate	“I feel comfortable raising concerns about sustainability reporting without negative consequences.” “Carbon reporting is seen as a priority in my department.”	Assess accountability culture
Open-ended items	“What changes would improve the quality of sustainability and carbon data?” “What changes would improve gender inclusivity in accountability practices?”	Gather qualitative insights from staff

Source: authors processing.

outlines the questionnaire structure used to gauge data quality, training/digital capacity, gender inclusiveness, and accountability climate (with open-ended prompts for improvements).

Table 3. Observed Routines.

Routine Observed	Description	Analytical Focus
Monthly Energy and Accounting Closure	Entry of utility bills, fuel logs, and reconciliations in TeamSystem Enterprise	Data quality, task allocation, gendered responsibility
Operational Reporting (Afsys, Global OA)	Export bookings, bills of landing, container loading/discharging lists transmitted to principals	Accountability to principals; digital traceability
Hyperion Uploads	Preparation and upload of monthly financial and operational reports to principal’s platform	Deadline pressures, stress, control over KPIs
Internal Meetings	Departmental discussions on sustainability and digital systems	Participation, voice, decision-making power

Source: authors processing.

documents the core routines observed (e.g., monthly closures, operational reporting, Hyperion uploads, meetings) and maps each to its analytical focus, anchoring our results in everyday practices where digital tools and gendered responsibilities intersect.

Figure 1 illustrates the sequential process through which operational data entry, internal consolidation, strategic review, and external reporting interact to produce GHG reporting within the organization. Each stage reflects the interplay between gendered roles and digital systems in shaping accountability practices. Women in the finance and operations units compile and reconcile emissions-related data from digital platforms (TeamSystem, Global OA, Navision, https://www.teamsystem.com/, accessed on 9 November 2025), ensuring operational accountability. This data is then validated and aggregated through managerial review, where decision rights remain concentrated among male executives who define reporting boundaries and KPI priorities. Finally, the consolidated data is transmitted via principal-mandated systems (e.g., Hyperion) to external stakeholders, closing the accountability loop and linking micro-level routines to organizational carbon disclosure.

The strategy allowed different opinions and the enriched dataset to be in line with the methodological approach of maritime ethnographic research [83]. More proof was taken from the organizational records and digital outputs such as ERP exports (TeamSystem, Navision), platform reports (Afsys, Global OA, Hyperion, https://www.softwaresuggest.com/afsys, accessed on 9 November 2025), communications related to the environment, organizational charts, and job descriptions. Although the insider author facilitated access to these artifacts, the other author checked the excerpts against the independent sources and kept a record of the document’s origin to prevent confirmation bias. These sources offered factual support for accountability processes and performance monitoring. Finally, to triangulate the results, we conducted a brief survey among the finance and operations staff. The tool evaluated the perception of data quality, understanding of the responsibilities, availability of the training, and participation in decision-making.

To prevent the possible effects of social desirability or authority that might result from the insider’s presence, A.D.V. was responsible for the instrument’s design, administration coordination, and data handling. The answers were given anonymously to allow the participants to be more open and honest in their reflection.

3.3. Insider–Outsider Dynamics and Reflexivity

One author having an insider role in this study is a methodological advantage as well as a challenge. In line with the ethical standards outlined in the Informed Consent Statement, all participants were informed of the study’s purpose and voluntarily agreed to take part in interviews and non-interventional observations. Informed consent was obtained both verbally and in writing. To preserve anonymity, participants are referred to by their organizational roles (e.g., “CFO”, “COO”, “accountant”) rather than by name, and any potentially identifying details have been generalized or omitted from the transcripts and fieldnotes. No personal or sensitive data were collected; all information was anonymized and reported in aggregate. Digital records were stored on password-protected devices accessible only to the research team. During insider observation, no confidential operational information was recorded beyond what was strictly relevant to the research purpose, ensuring full compliance with GDPR and MDPI ethical standards for studies involving human participants. An insider ethnography provides the researcher with the closest possible access to the intricacies of the organization’s life and, thus, helps to achieve a refined understanding [75,85]. At the same time, there is a risk of being too familiar, taking sides, and having blind spots, which Alvesson [76] points out. To avoid these risks, several safeguards were put in place.

First, the other author (A.D.V.) was responsible for designing the interview protocols and conducting interviews in situations where presence of insiders might have resulted in biased responses; every interview was transcribed and double-coded independently, with an audit trail recording the analytical decisions and member checks being employed to confirm the factual accuracy while the interpretative responsibility was retained by the research team [64,70].

Second, we kept reflexive memos to record the ways in which insider knowledge influenced the data collection and interpretation, which corresponds to the ethnographic methods used in accounting research [63]. According to Alvesson and Sköldberg [76], reflexivity is a fundamental feature of critical/interpretive research that recognizes that knowledge is co-created by researchers and organizational actors.

All the observational snippets were anonymized (roles generalized; identifying details redacted). To additionally lessen the possibility of insider bias, the insider co-author abstained from interviewing her direct reports; those interviews were carried out by A.D.V., and transcripts were dual-coded, with disagreements being resolved through peer-debrief.

3.4. Data Analysis

Data analysis was performed using an abductive approach, which involved going back and forth between the theory and empirical material. Interview and observational notes underwent open-coding first, with sensitizing concepts from accountability theory, gendered organizations, and digitalization being drawn [86]. The codes were then grouped into the second-order categories and overarching dimensions using a Gioia-style procedure [72]. In line with our ethnographic design, Gioia-style coding was employed as an analytical means rather than the main method and was supplemented by temporal bracketing and pattern matching. Therefore, we do not provide a “Gioia study” but rather an ethnographic case study that instrumentally uses Gioia-style coding alongside fieldnotes, shadowing, and document triangulation.

To reveal process dynamics, temporal bracketing followed the gradual establishment of carbon accountability through the five stages: pre-ERP systems, ERP adoption, principal-mandated platforms, regulatory e-invoicing, and emerging ESG requirements. Construct validity was enhanced through the triangulation between interviews, documents, and observations, while internal validity was strengthened by systematic searches for disconfirming evidence.

In accordance with interpretive traditions, coding was considered not as a mere mechanical step but as an iterative dialog between data and theory [40]. To counteract the risk of insider bias during the analysis, both authors independently coded all transcripts and fieldnotes; in case of disagreements, A.D.V. made the final decision, recorded decision rationales in the audit trail, and oversaw peer-debrief sessions. The interpretations of the insider author, especially those that were influenced by the privileged access, were directly confronted through negative-case analysis and checked against organizational artifacts (e.g., ERP exports, platform reports, meeting minutes).

The division of analytic roles between the two kept the benefits of positional knowledge while at the same time ensuring interpretive independence.

3.5. Research Quality

We evaluated the quality of the research based on the criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility came about as a result of the different factors, such as a six-month prolonged engagement, tri-source data (interviews, observations, and documents) triangulation, member checks, and an independent double-coding of all transcripts and fieldnotes. Transferability is upheld by the thick description of the organizational context and the daily activities through which readers can make their judgments about the applicability of the analyzed data to other maritime settings [88]. Dependability was a result of clear and open recording of the audit trail that included the coding schemes, decision rules, and changes in the procedure; peer debrief sessions were held to review emergent interpretations. Confirmability was facilitated by reflexive memos and the oversight of co-authors who were external to Marinter Shipping Agency Srl, with systematic negative-case analysis and cross-checks against organizational artifacts.

Since there was an insider author, extra precautions were put in place: the other author took the lead in designing the protocol, conducting interviews in which closeness could cause bias, handling coding disagreements, and recording interpretive decisions. The insider author did not interview direct reports; data from privileged access were checked against independent sources (ERP exports, platform reports, minutes). Interpretive responsibility was with the research team.

In sum, the ethnographic case design has allowed us to explore the enactment of carbon accountability in day-to-day activities, which is influenced by digital infrastructures, organizational routines, and gendered hierarchies. This methodological choice serves as a direct response to the gaps pointed out in the literature review, illustrating how qualitative, insider-informed inquiry can uncover the mechanisms that are hardly visible to external observers and thus, can contribute to theory-building on gender-inclusive carbon accountability in the maritime sector.

4. Results

Drawing on ethnographic observation and interpretive analysis, the results of this study reveal four interrelated dynamics that explain how carbon accountability is enacted within Marinter Shipping Agency Srl. The results emerge across digital, social, and institutional dimensions, illustrating how everyday practices, organizational routines, and gendered interactions shape accountability in action. The analysis reveals that digital systems operate as structural enablers of visibility and control, while women, through their expertise in data management and digital routines, sustain the operational foundation of carbon reporting. At the same time, men in executive positions define the strategic boundaries and priorities of accountability, determining what counts as relevant performance. Finally, external regulatory and principal-driven pressures continually reshape these internal relations, reinforcing or challenging established divisions of labor. Together, these insights highlight how digital infrastructures and gendered organizational structures co-evolve within the maritime context, offering a situated understanding of how accountability is both technically produced and socially constructed in practice. Figure 2 summarizes the ethnographic results, how carbon accountability emerges from the interaction among digital infrastructures, gendered roles, and external pressures. Digital systems enable visibility and control but rely on women’s data work to sustain operational accountability. Men, in executive roles, define the strategic boundaries and reporting priorities. External mandates and principal-driven systems reinforce or challenge these internal dynamics. Together, these interdependencies produce a co-evolution of technical infrastructures and gendered organizational structures that shape accountability in practice within the maritime sector.

An ethnographic case study helps understand the mechanisms of GHG accounting and how carbon accountability practices are influenced by digital infrastructures and gendered organizational dynamics within the organization.

Results discussing these four thematic areas were presented, which reflected the research question: how digital systems influence the role, how women position themselves as data producers, how decision rights concentrate among men, and how accountability practices evolve due to external pressures.

4.1. Digital Systems as Structural Enablers

The gradual adoption of digital systems has transformed Marinter’s ability to capture and report carbon-relevant data. The shift from manual registers, telex, and fax to Sysint and later TeamSystem Enterprise professionalized accounting and facilitated energy monitoring. Navision further integrated container bookings and invoicing, while Hyperion, Afsys, and Global OA imposed standardized reporting routines.

As the CFO observed:

“With TeamSystem Enterprise I can control each aspect at any time and everywhere. Before, reconciling bills and invoices required days; now it takes hours”.

Digital platforms thus reduced inefficiencies and created systematic archives. Yet these systems did not resolve all challenges. Certain Scope 3 categories, such as supplier emissions, remain untracked because they depend on external actors. Operational staff expressed frustration:

“We can tell you how many bookings we handle or how much energy we consume in the office, but we don’t know how the forwarders calculate their emissions. That’s outside our reach”.

From an interpretive perspective, these patterns evidence how digital infrastructures act as structural enablers of accountability while revealing their boundaries. Systems such as Hyperion or Global OA embed organizational routines into standardized templates, making certain forms of accountability possible while silencing others. What is made visible, calculable, and auditable ultimately reflects managerial decisions about what counts as relevant accountability. The reliance on digital systems reshapes work practices, data entry, reconciliation, and reporting become increasingly codified, producing a sense of discipline and control [25]. These results extend prior studies on the politics of digital accountability [89] by highlighting that digital systems do not simply increase transparency but actively shape which aspects of environmental performance become auditable. In the maritime context, where data infrastructures are designed by principal firms, digitalization embeds hierarchical accountability chains that privilege compliance visibility over sustainability dialog. Thus, digital infrastructures operate as ‘selective mediators’ [90], simultaneously enabling calculability and constraining local agency. This helps explain how carbon accountability becomes technologically disciplined but socially bounded, a tension not previously examined in shipping decarbonization studies.

However, the apparent neutrality of digitalization masks asymmetrical priorities: technical capacity to measure may clash with managerial disinterest in extending accountability beyond compliance, echoing Roberts’ [26] view that accountability frameworks both enable visibility and enforce limits.

4.2. Women as Data Producers

Women at Marinter Shipping Agency Srl occupy the accounting function, playing a pivotal role in the collection, reconciliation, and reporting of carbon-relevant data. Their expertise with ERP systems has ensured the reliability of Scope 1 and 2 reporting. The CFO described this explicitly:

“The choice of a female CFO and an entirely female accounting department is not entirely accidental. In our experience, women are more responsible for accounting management, and they also show greater flexibility in learning the features of digital technologies.”

Female staff members take ownership of technical routines, extracting invoices, uploading Hyperion reports, and handling reconciliation tasks. Their competence in mastering new features, often through tutorials, is widely acknowledged internally.

As one accountant noted:

“When the software house releases new functions, we watch the video tutorials and test them ourselves. We don’t need external trainers anymore.”

This routine mastery underscores women’s central role in ensuring that accountability data are produced, validated, and delivered on time. However, while their technical expertise provides the foundation for reliable reporting, their positioning reflects what Haynes [46] and Young [7] identify as the gendered distribution of accountability: women perform the labor that sustains organizational accountability, but their contribution is framed as operational support rather than strategic authority. From an ethnographic perspective, the women’s narratives often conveyed a sense of pride in technical competence, coupled with resignation regarding their limited influence on broader reporting boundaries. For instance, during observation of monthly closures, female accountants were highly engaged in checking data consistency, yet their interventions in subsequent managerial meetings were framed as “updates” rather than as inputs to decision-making. This resonates with Acker’s [5] theorization of organizations as inherently gendered structures, where women’s work is frequently valued for diligence and reliability but excluded from spaces of power. In this way, women at Marinter Shipping Agency Srl emerge as the producers of accountability data, yet their expertise is simultaneously celebrated and constrained. Their technical mastery provides organizational legitimacy, Scope 1 and 2 reporting could not function without them, but it does not automatically translate into voice or authority over the definition of what counts as accountability. Such dynamics illustrate how carbon accounting is not merely technical but socially produced through gendered divisions of labor and symbolic recognition [48]. Beyond confirming established gendered patterns, this study extends the debate by revealing how digital infrastructures mediate and intensify gendered divisions of accountability labor. The results highlight that women’s expertise with ERP and reporting systems positions them as indispensable “digital accountability intermediaries” who safeguard the reliability and continuity of carbon data flows but remain excluded from boundary-setting decisions. This dynamic represents a new empirical insight into how digitalization reconfigures but does not equalize accountability roles, a mechanism poorly theorized in sustainability accounting [90]. The case also demonstrates that technical mastery, traditionally associated with masculine-coded expertise, becomes feminized in digitalized environments, creating what Vial [91] describes as digital paradoxes where empowerment through technology coexists with entrenched symbolic marginalization. By illustrating these mechanisms within a maritime agency, the study moves beyond earlier analyses of undervalued women’s labor and persistent gendered inequalities in accounting work [51] toward a deeper theorization of how digital infrastructures reproduce organizational hierarchies under the guise of neutrality. The findings align with Davie’s [92] critique of accounting as a culturally gendered system, in which practices and expertise coded as “masculine” acquire symbolic authority, while those associated with feminized domains remain undervalued or rendered invisible. In this way, the case demonstrates that digitalization does not dissolve power asymmetries but can instead stabilize them through technologically mediated routines and classifications that perpetuate gendered divisions of accountability.

4.3. Men as Strategic Decision-Makers

While women produce the data, men largely retain control over strategic decision-making regarding carbon accountability. The Managing Director and COO decide which emissions categories are prioritized, how KPIs are defined, and which systems receive investment. This creates a structural asymmetry in which the reliability of data depends on women’s technical work, but the authority to define reporting boundaries remains concentrated at the top. A female accountant recalled an attempt to broaden the reporting boundary:

“I once suggested we include suppliers’ emissions in our reporting. The idea was appreciated, but then the matter was dropped. In the end, it was not considered a priority.”

In sustainability-related meetings, women often provide technical updates but do not influence strategic outcomes. The COO acknowledged this division candidly:

“The girls in accounting are precise and reliable, but when it comes to deciding how to deal with the shipowner or which reports matter, that’s something we decide at the top.”

This pattern resonates with Roberts’ [26] analysis of accountability as a practice that simultaneously creates visibility and enforces limits. Women’s visibility as data producers affirms their indispensability, yet their influence remains bounded by male executives who monopolize the production of priorities. This asymmetry reflects what Acker [5] describes as the “gendered substructure” of organizations: women’s competence is recognized, but strategic authority is constrained by entrenched norms of masculine decision-making. During observed meetings, women presented detailed breakdowns of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, yet their contributions were treated as technical reports rather than proposals shaping strategic choices. Discussions about whether to extend Scope 3 coverage or allocate resources for new systems were reserved for the Managing Director and COO, reinforcing an institutional order in which authority over sustainability boundaries remains gendered.

These results extend beyond well-documented gendered divisions of labor by showing how strategic control over carbon accountability is exercised through boundary-setting practices, that is, decisions about what is included, excluded, or prioritized within the organization’s sustainability scope. This mechanism adds theoretical depth to the literature by linking gendered power relations with the architecture of accountability [93]. In the maritime sector, external principles shaping compliance-oriented reporting further amplify executives’ discretion, who negotiate between technical accuracy and strategic pragmatism. Our evidence highlights that men in executive roles do not merely oversee environmental reporting outputs; they actively define the epistemic limits of what “counts” as accountability. This dynamic reflects long-standing insights that authority in accounting has historically been gendered, with men positioned as legitimate arbiters of what is visible, material, or decision-relevant [51,92]. Such boundary-setting also aligns with Cooper and Senkl’s [93] analysis of how discursive constructions of authority in accounting and auditing reproduce hierarchies that appear neutral yet privilege masculine-coded expertise.

In this perspective, carbon accountability is not merely a technical exercise but a socio-organizational process in which power, gender, and knowledge intersect to shape how environmental reporting is institutionalized. Although women generate most carbon-relevant data, men retain strategic decision rights, determining emissions categories, KPIs, and the systems in which the organization invests. The overall result is a structurally gendered allocation of authority in which operational reliability depends on women’s work, while strategic discretion is concentrated among male executives.

4.4. Evolution of Accountability Practices Under External Pressures

Over time, external regulations and principal-mandated systems intensified accountability demands. The adoption of Hyperion created rigid monthly deadlines, generating stress within the accounting department. From an interpretive perspective, the following ethnographic vignette illustrates how temporal and affective pressures operate as organizing mechanisms of accountability within the digitalized reporting environment. We conceptualize the monthly reporting cycle as a disciplinary rhythm through which accountability is enacted, experienced, and embodied, particularly by women who sustain reporting reliability under constant time compression. This approach aligns with recent methodological discussions that highlight how vignettes can illuminate the situated, emotionally charged nature of accounting work [94] and with ethnographic accounts emphasizing how researchers can capture the affective tensions and embodied pressures inherent in everyday accountability practices [95].

Month-end, 6.05 pm.

In the finance room, the Hyperion queue sits at 86%. [F1] checks a reconciliation sheet; a sticky note reads “energy bills—check VAT code.” The CFO leans in: “If the container charges don’t match, the principal will bounce it.” A calendar alert pings “HYP DEADLINE—7 pm.” Chatter stops. “We’ll make it if Global OA doesn’t freeze,” someone says. At 18:58 the bar hits 100%; a brief exhale—then [F2] opens the error log: “Two lines failed. I’ll fix and re-push.” The room resets: the deadline discipline holds.

Analytically, this vignette demonstrates that digital infrastructures do not merely automate reporting but inscribe organizational time and emotion into accountability routines. The scene captures the affective dimension of sustainable work, the emotional and relational labor that underpins the technical façade of reliability. In this sense, the vignette operates as an empirical lens through which to observe the embodied and gendered performance of accountability, revealing how external performance pressures materialize through the bodies, emotions, and working rhythms of female accountants.

One female accountant described the experience:

“Every month, the shipowner stresses us to complete Hyperion reports within the deadline. Sometimes we stay late to finish everything. It is exhausting.”

While these systems formalized routines, they also reinforced existing gendered divisions: women were tasked with compliance-heavy work, whereas men managed external relationships and negotiations with principals. In ethnographic terms, the intensification of reporting cycles increased the strain on women accountants, producing what Haynes [46] describes as the “hidden labor” of accountability, technical reliability achieved at the cost of unrecognized emotional and temporal effort. The recent rise in ESG expectations has brought sustainability into strategic discourse, yet practices at Marinter Shipping Agency Srl remain reactive.

As the Managing Director explained:

“Sustainability is important, but we must be pragmatic. We follow what the shipowner requires and what the authorities ask for. Going beyond that would require resources we do not have.”

Taking together, these observations reveal that external pressures formalize accountability but do not necessarily alter underlying hierarchies. Women absorb the burden of compliance work, while men retain the authority to negotiate with principals and to decide whether sustainable ambitions expand. In line with Ahrens & Chapman [25] and Roberts [26], accountability is not neutral: it is mediated by organizational power and by whose voice counts in defining what matters. Without deliberate interventions aligned with SDG 5, accountability risks remain narrow and compliance-driven, reproducing existing asymmetries rather than enabling transformative sustainability.

5. Discussion

This ethnographic single-case study set out to understand how gender dynamics shape GHG accounting and carbon accountability in a maritime agency, and how digital systems enable or constrain these practices over time. Consistent with research on ports and shipping [2,3,4], our results reveal that organizational capabilities, especially data and process capabilities, are decisive for accountability. ERP and principal-mandated platforms materially improved the visibility, traceability, and timeliness of carbon-relevant data, resonating with syntheses that link carbon accounting and integrated reporting to net-zero feasibility [22] and with climate policy work stressing robust measurement in hard-to-abate sectors [16]. Yet digital enablement does not automatically create strategic accountability. What is measured, how boundaries are defined, and how results are used remain organizational and political decisions [25]. At Marinter Shipping Agency Srl, efficient digital workflows coexisted with a narrow, compliance-driven view of accountability.

TeamSystem Enterprise stabilized finance and energy data; Navision and Global OA reduced paper and made transactions auditable; Hyperion imposed cadence and comparability across agents. Still, three constraints persisted: boundary control remained externally shaped, Scope 3 categories requiring partner data suffered from weak leverage and ad hoc information channels; manual overrides and corrections showed how socio-technical frictions persist even within digitized workflows; investment decisions (e.g., extending ESG reporting, procuring integrations or assurance) reflected the preferences of a small strategic core rather than the insights of daily data producers. Digitalization is thus a necessary substrate for accountability, but not a sufficient driver of strategic transformation.

This study presents uniqueness and replicability. A distinctive contribution is to disentangle operational accountability (produced and stabilized by women through ERP-enabled routines) from strategic accountability (defined and bounded by male executives), highlighting how the distribution of voice and decision rights conditions the credibility and scope of decarbonization. While the empirical configuration is specific to a Mediterranean agency, the methodological pathway is replicable: structured access to accounting and operations units; a clear insider–outsider role split; multi-source data (interviews, participant/non-participant observation of closure cycles and platform uploads, documentary capture of ERP/PMIS/principal reports); and an abductive analysis pipeline combining open coding, temporal bracketing of decarbonization/digitalization phases, and pattern matching.

5.1. Gendered Organizations: Women as Producers of Data, Men as Producers of Priorities

Viewing carbon accountability through a gender lens reveals a patterned and persistent division of labor that technical studies often overlook. At Marinter Shipping Agency Srl, women sustain the operational backbone of the system: they compile, reconcile and upload the data that make Scopes 1–2 reporting credible, mastering new digital features and stabilizing routines under conditions of temporal pressure. This configuration mirrors broader gender dynamics in the maritime sector, where women frequently occupy roles centered on coordination, accuracy and administrative or technical continuity [96,97]. These results align with evidence that gender inclusion can support more reliable and transparent sustainability practices, as diverse teams tend to improve error detection, enhance information quality and promote organizational learning. However, such benefits typically arise when gender inclusion extends to both operational and strategic domains. In this case, the relationship is not causal but conditional: women’s strong operational and technical contributions enhance the reliability of reporting, yet their influence does not extend to boundary-setting or strategic decision-making. As a result, gendered hierarchies persist at the level of authority and agenda-setting, constraining the potential for women’s expertise to drive innovation in carbon accounting. Gender inclusion at Marinter Shipping Agency Srl therefore operates as a latent capability rather than a realized driver of innovation, one that strengthens the reliability of data systems but remains structurally disconnected from the strategic arenas where carbon accountability is defined, prioritized and institutionalized.

Yet, consistent with theories of gendered organizations [5,46], strategic decision-rights, defining KPIs, selecting system architectures, negotiating with principals, deciding how far to extend Scope 3, are concentrated among male executives. This asymmetry matters for at least three reasons. First, it narrows the horizon of accountability: those with the deepest technical knowledge have limited influence on defining reporting boundaries, making opportunities for meaningful expansion (e.g., supplier engagement, standardized Scope 3 exchanges) easily deprioritized. Second, it externalizes strain: the same women who guarantee compliance also absorb deadline stress and operational risk, without a corresponding role in prioritization or resource allocation. Third, it reinforces a compliance orientation, where data production becomes an end rather than a platform for experimentation and improvement. Our case therefore nuances contemporary frameworks that treat accountability as a neutral technical practice. Accountability is not simply a matter of systems and routines, it is socially produced, and it is gendered [21,62]. Generational differences also emerged during observation and interviews. Younger staff, both women and men, showed greater openness toward digital tools and gender-balanced collaboration, perceiving inclusivity and data transparency as mutually reinforcing aspects of professional competence. Senior personnel, by contrast, tended to view digital accountability primarily as a compliance requirement, and their attitudes toward gender inclusiveness were shaped more by traditional role expectations within the maritime sector. Importantly, part of the organizational shift observed at Marinter Shipping Agency Srl appears to stem from generational renewal at the governance level: two younger women were appointed to the board of directors, one of whom possesses strong operational and accounting expertise. Their presence has begun to influence how accountability and digital transformation are discussed, gradually translating inclusive values into decision-making and system design. These generational contrasts did not produce overt conflict but did subtly reshape how accountability routines were interpreted, negotiated, and institutionalized within the organization.

5.2. From Capability to Accountability: A Socio-Technical Mechanism

This case offers an opportunity to outline a socio-technical mechanism consistent with prior studies on net-zero reporting [22], sectoral decarbonization [1], and gender-inclusive governance in shipping [21]. Digital affordances (ERP, PMIS, principal platforms) facilitate data fidelity and process cadence. Within maritime logistics, these digital affordances extend beyond the firm level by structuring how information circulates across the wider supply chain, thereby enhancing transparency in ship–port–forwarder interactions and enabling more consistent integration of sustainability metrics into upstream and downstream accountability processes. On their own, these do not directly lead to operational accountability (accurate Scopes 1–2, auditable transactions), but rather they make it possible. The question of whether operational accountability is converted into strategic accountability (wider boundary, target setting, adaptive investment) is answered by two moderators: external mandates and incentives (shipowner templates, port/market expectations) and internal decision rights and voice which, in this case, are gendered. In a situation where there are strong external mandates, and female data producers are given an institutionalized voice, accountability becomes more profound. On the other hand, if there are only a few mandates and the decision rights are still in the hands of male executives, accountability remains at the level of compliance.

The results from this case offer a contextual insight for interpretive accounting research: accountability transformation emerges not solely from technical infrastructures but from how digital affordances intersect with organizational power, epistemic authority, and voice. Rather than proposing a universal claim, the evidence from Marinter Shipping Agency Srl suggests that when digital systems are embedded within inclusive governance structures, where those who generate data also participate in decision-making, accountability deepens beyond compliance. Conversely, when decision rights remain concentrated, digital infrastructures stabilize existing hierarchies rather than transforming them [46]. This proposition should therefore be viewed as indicative rather than conclusive, offering a socio-technical and epistemic lens for further multi-case research on gendered accountability transformation. Importantly, we highlight that women’s expertise is central to the integrity of carbon data yet undervalued when strategic priorities are set. This evidence contributes to the emerging conversation on gender equality and decarbonization responsibility in shipping [21], adding an ethnographically grounded account of how gender shapes the distribution of attention and authority in accountability work.

Recent research on digital transformation and sustainability-oriented accountability in the public sector provide evidence similar dynamics: integrated information systems (IISs) can enhance performance measurement and transparency but often reinforce economic or managerial priorities over social and ecological ones [98]. These results echo our evidence that digital infrastructures in maritime contexts, while enabling data fidelity, may also reproduce institutional hierarchies unless accompanied by inclusive governance frameworks.

These insights align with recent large-scale quantitative evidence showing that gender-diverse boards are associated with lower GHG emissions across multiple countries. Specifically, Gull et al. [99] demonstrate that women directors play a critical role in advancing corporate environmental accountability and reducing both direct and indirect emissions through enhanced ethical sensitivity and stakeholder engagement. This evidence reinforces our argument that gender inclusion within governance and reporting structures strengthens the credibility and effectiveness of carbon accountability practices.

5.3. Advancing Knowledge: Theoretical, Empirical, and Methodological Contributions and Policy Implications for the Industry

This study advances the accountability literature by demonstrating that who performs carbon accounting, whose knowledge, labor, and authority shape reporting practices, is a critical determinant of accountability outcomes [100]. Building on Haynes’ [46] review of accounting as both a gendered and gendering institution, this study advances the field of gendered accountability by offering an empirically grounded theorization of how gendered divisions of labor and authority are reproduced, and can be reconfigured, through digital infrastructures of carbon accounting. It moves the debate beyond descriptive accounts of inequality to show how accountability itself becomes a gendered social process enacted through technological systems and reporting routines, linking feminist and socio-technical perspectives within sustainability accounting. Rather than establishing a causal comparison of different accounting processes, our evidence foregrounds the social constitution of accountability through gendered divisions of labor and voice. The results indicate that the ‘how’ of carbon accounting cannot be separated from the ‘who’: practices evolve through situated expressions of expertise, authority, and power within digital infrastructures. Hence, while the present case does not provide comparative evidence of process variation, it conceptually extends accountability theory by showing that procedural design acquires meaning only through the actors who perform and interpret it.

While previous studies have largely treated carbon accounting as a technical and managerial exercise, we show that gendered divisions of labor and voice are constitutive of accountability outcomes, not merely contextual variables. By connecting gendered organizations theory to the micro-infrastructure of carbon data work, we highlight how the distribution of decision rights and authority shapes the trajectory of accountability. Furthermore, we enrich socio-technical perspectives on net-zero reporting frameworks by distinguishing operational accountability from strategic accountability and by identifying moderators, external mandates and gendered decision-rights, that mediate the transition between them. This perspective extends beyond the analysis of digitalization and performance management systems offered by Di Vaio et al. [101], by demonstrating how technological infrastructures and performance controls are themselves embedded in gendered organizational contexts, broadening the theoretical lens from efficiency to inclusivity. Empirically, this study extends maritime scholarship that has emphasized capabilities, integration, and efficiency [2,3,4] by providing thick description of how a shipping agency at the ship–port interface enacts carbon accountability in practice. We illustrate how Scopes 1–2 can be managed with relative stability, where Scope 3 falters due to inter-organizational dependencies, and how principal-mandated digital platforms reorder local routines. Importantly, we highlight that women’s expertise is central to the integrity of carbon data, yet undervalued when strategic priorities are set. This evidence contributes to the emerging conversation on gender equality and decarbonization responsibility in shipping [21], adding an ethnographically grounded account of how gender shapes the distribution of attention and authority in accountability work. Methodologically, this study illustrates the potential and challenges of an ethnographic case with insider access. Prolonged engagement and participation enabled the observation of micro-dynamics that cross-sectional surveys and external audits typically miss, the translation of deadlines into extra-role behaviors, the tacit rules of meeting talk, or the accumulation of small decisions that narrow reporting scope. At the same time, by implementing safeguards, external co-authors conducting interviews, independent dual coding, maintaining an audit trail, and bounding member checks to factual validation, we demonstrate how insider research can achieve credibility and reflexivity [64,75,76]. Compared to Di Vaio et al. [101], which applied a case study design focused on digital performance systems, our ethnographic approach advances methodological knowledge by evidencing how insider-outsider collaboration can surface organizational dynamics otherwise inaccessible to researchers.

The results of this study translate into actionable implications for maritime agencies and their principals. First, governance of the carbon data pipeline should be redesigned with an RACI structure that explicitly integrates gender overlays. The individuals who produce and validate data, often women, should be recognized as co-owners of boundary definitions, KPI selection, and system procurement decisions. This approach is not only equitable but also improves problem detection and organizational learning by coupling detailed knowledge with decision authority. Second, Scope 3 engagement should be codified through contractual clauses and API-based data exchanges with key partners, supported by standardized templates. Digitalization delivers real value only when paired with relational leverage. Principals and port authorities can accelerate this by embedding gender-inclusive accountability requirements into their templates and audits, aligning decarbonization with broader social responsibility. Third, capacity-building must move beyond technical training to participatory system design. Including women in system selection, vendor dialog, and KPI architecture redistributes voice where it matters most, at the point of defining what counts. Inclusive meeting practices (agenda co-design, rotating chairs, structured rounds) can also transform routine “updates” into genuine participation. Finally, assurance and incentives should evolve toward strategic accountability. Internal audits and external assurance mechanisms can rate not only data quality but also the inclusivity of governance and the breadth of reporting scope. Agencies that demonstrate progress on both carbon and gender dimensions could benefit from reputational or contractual advantages, contributing to a more sustainable and equitable maritime sector.

Following the completion of this study, Marinter Shipping Agency Srl undertook several organizational adjustments inspired by the research findings. Specifically, the agency introduced a pilot RACI-based accountability chart explicitly identifying responsibilities for carbon and ESG data management across departments. The accounting team, led by the female CFO, was formally involved in defining Scope 3 data-collection procedures and reviewing KPI proposals for forthcoming sustainability reports. Furthermore, management meetings on digital system updates now include at least one representative from the finance and operations units to ensure gender-balanced participation in decision-making. Although preliminary, these measures signal an initial internal shift toward greater inclusiveness and shared ownership of accountability processes, consistent with the gender-inclusive framework proposed in this study.

Given the centrality of agencies in the ship-port interface, industry associations and port authorities are well placed to create shared protocols for agency-level carbon accounting that specify baseline Scope 3 categories suited to the agency role, standardize data exchange with principals and forwarders, and incorporate gender-inclusivity criteria in governance checks. Principals can require their agents to report not only carbon metrics but also governance metrics (e.g., gender composition of sustainability decision fora, evidence of co-ownership by data producers). Such measures would align with SDG 5 and SDG 13 and support the sectoral decarbonization imperative underscored by climate policy research [1]. As an in-depth single case, our study privileges analytic generalization over statistical inference. Marinter’s size, regional context, and particular principal relationships may shape the transferability of insights. While our reflexive safeguards mitigate insider bias, they cannot eliminate it. Future research should pursue comparative multi-case designs across ports and agency sizes, examine longitudinal shifts as ESG regulations mature, and test interventions (e.g., gender-inclusive governance changes, contractual Scope-3 clauses, API pilots) to evaluate causal effects on both accountability breadth and emissions outcomes. Mixed-methods work could triangulate ethnographic insights with social-network analyses of decision-rights and process mining of digital traces, deepening our understanding of how voice and power flow through carbon data pipelines.

This study advances the accountability literature by demonstrating that who performs carbon accounting, whose expertise, positional power, and interpretive authority shape reporting practices, is fundamental to understanding accountability outcomes, as carbon accounting acquires meaning through the situated actions and interpretations of those who enact it rather than through a purely technical routine [100].

While prior work has largely treated carbon accounting as a technical–managerial exercise, we highlight that gendered divisions of labor and voice are constitutive of accountability outcomes rather than merely contextual variables. By connecting gendered organizations theory to the micro-infrastructure of carbon data work, we highlight how the distribution of decision rights and authority shapes the trajectory of accountability. We also enrich socio-technical perspectives on net-zero reporting by distinguishing operational accountability from strategic accountability and by identifying moderators, external mandates and gendered decision rights that mediate the transition between them. Empirically, the study extends maritime scholarship emphasizing capabilities, integration, and efficiency [2,3,4] by providing a thick description of how a shipping agency at the ship–port interface enacts carbon accountability in practice. We illustrate how Scopes 1–2 can be managed with relative stability, where Scope 3 falters due to inter-organizational dependencies, and how principal-mandated digital platforms reorder local routines. Importantly, we show that women’s expertise is central to the integrity of carbon data yet undervalued when strategic priorities are set. This evidence contributes to the emerging conversation on gender equality and decarbonization responsibility in shipping [21], adding an ethnographically grounded account of how gender shapes the distribution of attention and authority in accountability work.

Methodologically, this study illustrates the potential and challenges of an ethnographic case with insider access. Prolonged engagement and participation enabled observation of micro-dynamics that cross-sectional surveys and external audits typically miss, deadline discipline, error log triage, tacit rules of meeting talk, and the accumulation of small decisions that narrow reporting scope. At the same time, by implementing safeguards (external co-author interviews, independent dual coding, an audit trail, bounded member checks), we evidence how insider research can achieve credibility and reflexivity. Compared to Di Vaio et al. [101], a case design centered on digital performance systems, our insider–outsider ethnography advances methodological knowledge by demonstrating how role separation surfaces organizational dynamics otherwise inaccessible to researchers.

Based on our results, we outline the policy and management implications, detailing the necessary actions, identifying the key players, and highlighting where important trade-offs might come into play. Specifically, the results translate into actionable levers for maritime agencies and their principals are:

• Governance of the carbon data pipeline.

Redesign with a RACI structure that explicitly integrates gender overlays. Individuals who produce and validate data, often women, should be recognized as co-owners of boundary definitions, KPIs selection, and system procurement decisions. This is equitable and improves problem detection and organizational learning by coupling detailed knowledge with decision authority.

2.

Scope 3 engagement.

Codify through contractual clauses and API-based data exchanges with key partners, supported by standardized templates. Digitalization delivers value only when paired with relational leverage. Principals and port authorities can accelerate this by embedding gender-inclusive accountability requirements into templates and audits, aligning decarbonization with broader social responsibility.

3.

Capacity-building and participatory design.

Move beyond technical training to participatory system design. Include women in system selection, vendor dialog, and KPIs architecture; adopt inclusive meeting practices (agenda co-design, rotating chairs, structured rounds) to convert routine “updates” into genuine participation. Assurance and incentives.

4.

Assurance and incentives.

Evolve toward strategic accountability: internal audits and external assurance should rate not only data quality but also the inclusivity of governance and the breadth of reporting scope. Agencies progressing on both carbon and gender dimensions can benefit from reputational or contractual advantages, contributing to a more sustainable and equitable sector.

Given the centrality of agencies in the ship–port interface, industry associations and port authorities are well placed to create shared protocols for agency-level carbon accounting that specify baseline Scope 3 categories suited to the agency role, standardize data exchange with principals and forwarders, and incorporate gender-inclusivity criteria in governance checks. Principals can require agents to report not only carbon metrics but also governance metrics (e.g., gender composition of sustainability decision fora; evidence of co-ownership by data producers), aligning with SDG 5 and SDG 13 and supporting the sectoral decarbonization imperative [1,102].

As an in-depth single case, the study privileges analytic generalization over statistical inference. Marinter Shipping Agency’s size, regional context, and principal relationships may shape transferability. While reflexive safeguards mitigate insider bias, they cannot eliminate it. Future research should pursue comparative multi-case designs across ports and agency sizes, examine longitudinal shifts as ESG regulations mature, and test interventions (e.g., gender-inclusive governance changes, contractual Scope-3 clauses, API pilots) to evaluate causal effects on both accountability breadth and emissions outcomes. Mixed-methods work can triangulate ethnographic insights with social-network analyses of decision rights and process mining of digital traces, deepening understanding of how voice and power circulate through carbon data processes.

6. Conclusions

This study asked: How do gender dynamics shape GHG accounting and carbon accountability within a maritime agency, and how do digital systems enable or constrain these practices over time? Through an ethnographic single-case study of Marinter Shipping Agency Srl, we highlighted that accountability practices at the ship-port interface emerge from the interaction between digital infrastructures and organizational power relations. Digitalization strengthened the technical capacity for carbon accounting, especially for Scopes 1–2, by making data traceable, reliable, and auditable through ERP platforms and principal-mandated systems, consistent with prior work on supply chain accountability [4]. Yet these infrastructures alone do not guarantee broader accountability. The boundaries of what is measured and reported remain shaped by organizational priorities and power relations, echoing decarbonization research that emphasizes the socio-political nature of sectoral transitions [1,21].

Our results reveal that accountability evolves not merely through technological enhancement but through how authority, decision rights, and voice are distributed within the organization. This perspective extends the lens of gendered organizations, illustrating how divisions of labor and decision rights condition both the scope and ambition of environmental accountability [22]. By integrating these insights, the study contributes in three ways. First, it builds on research in logistics capabilities and port management [2,3] by showing how these capabilities now extend into carbon accounting yet remain constrained when decision-making structures are unevenly distributed. Second, it advances scholarship on carbon accounting and integrated reporting for net-zero business models [22] by distinguishing operational from strategic accountability and highlighting the organizational mechanisms through which the latter is bounded. Third, it responds to calls to examine the nexus of gender equality and decarbonization responsibilities in shipping [21], offering empirical evidence of how gender shapes accountability practices at the ship–port interface. Although the findings derive from a medium-sized Mediterranean agency, the gendered accountability model proposed here offers interpretive value for larger or multinational shipping organizations, where digital infrastructures may be more standardized but gendered asymmetries can persist within ESG reporting hierarchies and decision-making forums. Future research could explore how these dynamics unfold in global liner companies or vertically integrated logistics groups, where digital governance and cultural diversity may modify, but not eliminate, gendered patterns of authority.

Overall, carbon accountability in maritime agencies is supported by digital infrastructures and sustained by operational expertise, yet remains conditioned by prevailing organizational hierarchies. Advancing credible and ambitious accountability, therefore, requires not only technical systems but also more inclusive distributions of voice and decision rights, aligned with SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). These reflections resonate with cross-sector advances in circular-economy research, where strategic evaluations of end-of-life options [103] and data-driven material recognition techniques [104] illustrate how transparent, evidence-based processes can strengthen accountability and support sustainability transitions. This study contributes a socio-technical interpretation of carbon accountability by conceptualizing it not as a technical exercise in measurement but as a socially enacted process shaped by the distribution of authority, expertise, and voice within digital infrastructures.

Future research could deepen and extend these insights through comparative multi-case studies across ports, agency sizes, and regulatory contexts, as well as in other hard-to-abate sectors where gendered divisions of labor may influence accountability outcomes. Quantitative or mixed-method approaches could also examine causal relationships between gender-inclusive governance and improvements in reporting reliability, transparency, and innovation. Such extensions would strengthen the empirical and conceptual foundations for linking SDG 5 and SDG 13 across diverse maritime and logistics ecosystems.