حسابداری مدیریت زیست محیطی در حکومت محلی: دستورات تابعی و موسسه ای Environmental management accounting in local government: Functional and institutional imperatives

INTRODUCTION Public sector organisations have increasingly been encouraged to take greater environmental responsibility (Frost & Seamer, 2002). Recent attention has been given to the use of environmental accounting, particularly environmental management accounting (EMA) to support environmental decision-making by local government (Ball, 2005; Qian, Burritt, & Monroe, 2011). As local government is in a better position than central and state governments to make progress on sustainable development at the community level, it has potential to be at the vanguard of the development of EMA (Ball & Craig, 2010). One of the essential environmental services provided by local government is waste and recycling management financed through council rates and levies (Ball, 2005; Lewis, 2000). This study investigates the uptake of different levels of EMA for local government waste and recycling services and functional and institutional factors associated with such uptake. With increasing threats of waste disposal to long-term sustainability and the declining financial health of local government, various calls have been made to broaden collection of waste information. These include promotion of lifecycle assessment and integration of economic and environmental costs into waste management in Europe (European Commission, 2009); full-cost accounting for waste and recycling services in the USA (USEPA, 1997); and introduction of charges reflecting full economic and environmental costs of waste disposal in Australia (AESDSC, 1992). Yet, collection and use of EMA information remains a challenge, particularly for less-visible costs such as waste and recycling flows, future clean-up costs and environmental impacts of disposal alternatives hidden in overheads (USEPA, 1995; Qian et al., 2011). Combining monetary, physical, hidden and external costs and impacts adds further layers of complexity. To understand EMA development in organisations, Parker (1997) and Qian and Burritt (2009) suggested the use of a contingency lens as an organisation’s structural arrangements and management procedures can be subject to the contexts in which it operates. These contexts can involve an immediate technical environment where functional demands persist, and a wider social environment where institutional pressures form. For example, Qian and Burritt (2009) and Christ and Burritt (2013) claimed that the level of engagement of an organisation with EMA tools depends on different functional contingencies such as service complexity, environmental uncertainty and strategic priority. Getting the right fit with these functional demands allows the organisation to improve efficiency and reach targeted performance (Chenhall, 2003). In contrast, Ball (2005) and Ball and Craig (2010) used institutional theory to explore social imperatives such as social environmental movements and cultural expectations. They conceptualized EMA changes within a wider institutional environment which they contended has shaped an organisation’s environmental behaviour and commitments.