WWW.ABSTRACT.DISLIB.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Abstracts, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |

«by Peter Warwick Chew Ng* Department of Accounting, Finance & Economics Griffith Business School Griffith University Abstract Following the ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

The ‘Cost’ of Climate Change: How Carbon Emissions Allowances

are Accounted for Amongst European Union Companies

by

Peter Warwick

Chew Ng*

Department of Accounting, Finance & Economics

Griffith Business School

Griffith University

Abstract

Following the withdrawal of IFRIC 3: Emissions Rights in 2005, European Union (EU)

companies participating in an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) do not have definitive

guidelines as to how to account for carbon emissions allowances. Using a content analysis methodology, this study examines disclosed accounting policies of companies participating in the EU ETS, and reveals how, in the absence of clear guidance, they account for their carbon emissions allowances. As the accounting method adopted will impact upon a company’s financial statements, these findings would be of interest to accounting standards setters, investors, financial reporting preparers, auditors, and academic audiences.

Key words: IFRIC 3, Emissions Trading Scheme, emissions allowances, and accounting policy choices JEL classification: M41 _____________________

* Corresponding author: Chew Ng, Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Nathan Campus, Queensland 4111, Australia, telephone: +61 7 3735 6492, facsimile: +61 7 3735 3719, e-mail: c.ng@griffith.edu.au The ‘Cost’ of Climate Change: How Carbon Emissions Allowances are Accounted for Amongst European Union Companies Abstract Following the withdrawal of IFRIC 3: Emissions Rights in 2005, European Union (EU) companies participating in an emissions trading scheme (ETS) do not have definitive guidelines as to how to account for carbon emissions allowances. Using a content analysis methodology, this study examines disclosed accounting policies of companies participating in the EU ETS, and reveals how, in the absence of clear guidance, they account for their carbon emissions allowances. As the accounting method adopted will impact upon a company’s financial statements, these findings will be of interest to accounting standards setters, investors, financial reporting preparers, auditors, and academic audiences.

The ‘Cost’ of Climate Change: How Carbon Emissions Allowances are Accounted for Amongst European Union Companies The Intergenerational Report 2010 (Australian Government 2010) identifies climate change as the largest threat to Australia’s environment and one of the most significant challenges to its economic sustainability. To tackle this challenge/threat, the former Rudd government committed to implementing a cap-and-trade scheme, called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) in 20131, targeting a 5% reduction in emissions below 2000 levels by 2020 on a unilateral basis. Although the demise of the Rudd government in June 2010 and a subsequent hung parliament have created uncertainties over this initiative, the Gillard government announced In February 2011 that a carbon tax regime will be introduced as from July 1 2012, with the implementation of a CPRS in 2015.

Globally, thirty-two countries are currently operating, or are participating within, an emissions trading scheme (ETS), with other major economies moving towards the adoption of such a scheme (Australian Government 2010). To date, the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is the largest multi-country and multi-sector scheme in the world. In 2008, of the total of 8.2 billion metric tonnes of carbon allowances (worth €92 billion or US$125 billion) traded globally, the EU ETS accounted for two-thirds of the global volume and three-quarters of global value (Point Carbon 2010: 5). With such material amounts involved, the way in which EU companies account for their carbon emissions allowances in their financial statements has also taken on greater significance.

However, since the withdrawal of the international accounting guidance, commonly referred to as IFRIC 3: Emission Rights, there has been no formal accounting recommendation as to how emissions are to be financially accounted for within a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme. As noted in Deloitte (2009), EU companies therefore have a degree of accounting policy choice in defining what kind of asset an ‘emissions allowance’ is – intangible asset or inventory, and how it is valued – at cost or fair value.

The purpose of this study is to gain an empirical understanding of how carbon emissions allowances are accounted for by EU companies operating under the EU ETS. Examining approaches to accounting for emissions allowances is important since the financial implications arising from the EU ETS may be material in nature and amount. As mentioned previously, the EU ETS is the largest carbon market segment in the world. Since the EU ETS is an important mechanism for carbon reductions, an investigation of the way in which these companies account for their impact would provide useful information to governments, regulators, and other stakeholders. With the globalisation of ETS on the horizon, the accounting treatments of emissions allowances adopted by EU companies will also have increasing international relevance.

Currently academic research studies in this area are scant, though various organisations (including the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, ACCA, and the International Emissions Trading Association, IETA) and Big 4 accounting firms

–  –  –





PricewaterhouseCoopers in conjunction with IETA in 2007 surveyed 26 European companies and identified six main accounting approaches to emissions allowances.

Ernst and Young (2008) found that of 32 companies investigated, 20 reported using some form of the net liability approach and 22 companies recognised emissions allowances as intangible assets. In a study conducted for ACCA and in conjunction with IETA, Lovell et al. (2010) found that most of the companies they surveyed were not following IFRIC 3. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is probably the first academic research in the area undertaken in 2009. Our findings would be of interest to accounting standards setters, investors, financial statement preparers, auditors and the academic community, not only in Europe, but in any country presently participating, or about to participate, in their version of an emissions trading scheme.

The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. The next section introduces the EU ETS. This is followed by a discussion of the accounting treatments for emissions allowances. Our research questions are then raised. An outline of the type of analysis to be undertaken and the sample selection are followed. We then analyse and interpret our results. The paper concludes with a discussion on the implications of the findings, limitations of the study, and possible future research avenues.

EU Emissions Trading Scheme The Kyoto Protocol provides legally binding commitments for signatory countries to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG). To achieve the EU target of 20% emissions reduction from 1990 levels by 2020, a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme was established and became operational as from 1 January 2005. Under the scheme, an overall emissions limit (i.e. cap) was initially set by each EU member state. The cap is converted into allowances (called European Union Allowances, or EUAs) which companies are required to obtain to cover the annual carbon emissions from their ‘installations’.2 A fixed amount of allowances are allocated free of charge, by the ‘scheme administrators’ (i.e. the governmental bodies of the EU member states), to account holders of operator companies responsible for the installation’s activities.

The account holders must report the quantity of independently verified emissions to the scheme administrators for each calendar year by 31 March of the following year.

For each tonne of carbon emissions produced, the account holder must surrender one EUA to the scheme administrator by 30 April of that year. This obligation may be satisfied through the surrender of appropriate numbers of EUAs matching the verified actual emissions. Financial penalties apply for non-compliance. Taking into account the number of EUAs held and their obligations to surrender EUAs for their emissions obligations, companies are free to buy and sell their EUAs in the actively traded ETS market. This process represents a market-based response by the EU to provide financial incentives for companies to curtail emissions (Bebbington and Larrinaga-Gonzalez 2008).

The EU ETS consists of three compliance periods (Robinson 2010). The first phase, operating from 2005 to 2007, was designed to serve as a learning phase.

During this period, the infrastructure of a carbon market was built and member states were required to allocate at least 95% of the allowances free of charge.

The second phase started at the beginning of 2008 and will run until the end of 2012, coinciding with the first commitment phase of the Kyoto Protocol. During this period, at least 90% of the allowances must be allocated free of charge. A penalty of €100 for every tonne of emissions that does not have matching allowances is also imposed.

Phase 3 of the scheme will commence in 2013 and run until 2020. During this period, the emissions cap will be set at a European level rather than by each member state individually (Robinson 2010). Under Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament, more auctioning of allowances (carried out individually by EU member states) is planned, with a target of 70% being auctioned by 2020.

In addition to meeting emissions obligations, account holders may hold emissions allowances for speculative trading purposes. Prices of emissions allowances have been volatile over the past three years (Capoor and Ambrosi 2009), with a high of €28 on the spot market in July 2008 to a low of €8 in February 2009. In May 2010, emissions allowances were trading between €10 and €15. The existence of tradable emissions allowances creates further challenges for accountants as in principle these allowances should be treated as a financial commodity and be recognised in the accounts and reported in the financial statements (Bebbington and Larrinaga-Gonzalez 2008).

Accounting for Emissions Allowances Before we examine the issue of how EU companies are to account for EUAs, it is useful to review the accounting treatments for pollution allowances in the United States in the 1990s. This is because some of the accounting guidance as stated in IFRIC 3 appears to have been based on existing literature relating to accounting treatments for pollution allowances in the US.

In March 1993, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued financial reporting requirements for pollution allowances created under the Clear Air Act amendments of 1990. The FERC recommended that pollution allowances should be recorded according to their intended use and at historical cost. Allowances used to cover pollution emissions are reported as inventory in the ‘Allowance Inventory’ account, while allowances intended for use as investments are recorded in the ‘Other Investments’ account. Since allowances issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were free of charge, under a historical cost accounting system, no assets or expenses were recognised. Only purchased allowances would be recorded as assets (according to the intended use) and an expense would be recognised when they were used to compensate for pollution emissions (Wambsganss and Sanford 1996: 645).

However, Wambsganss and Sanford (1996) argued that the above accounting treatments were inconsistent. They recommended that issued pollution allowances should be treated as donated assets and be valued at market price. Doing so would provide a uniform accounting treatment for all allowances, regardless of whether they are granted or purchased. Wambsganss and Sanford (1996) also argued that pollution allowances are intangible assets and should be valued at market price or fair value.

As the discussion in the following section reveals, the subsequent accounting guidance on emissions allowances recommended by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) appeared to adopt Wambsganss and Sanford’s view (Bebbington and Larrinaga-Gonzalez 2008: 705).

IFRIC Interpretation 3: Emission Rights An ETS raises the issue of whether and how to recognise emissions allowances and the obligation to deliver allowances. In the run-up to the launch of the EU ETS, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) instructed the International Financial Reporting Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) to develop accounting guidance for emissions allowances. In December 2004, IFRIC issued IFRIC Interpretation 3: Emission Rights (known as IFRIC 3) which was to be applicable for financial reporting periods beginning on or after 1 March 2005, with earlier adoption encouraged so that it could be implemented for the beginning of Phase 1 of the EU ETS. IFRIC 3 recommended that emissions allowances (an asset) be treated separately from the obligation to deliver allowances (a liability) arising under the EU ETS. This approach is referred to as a ‘gross’ basis (ACCA 2009: 7).

Emissions Allowances IFRIC 3 first considered whether emissions allowances (granted and purchased) were assets and concluded that they met the definition of assets. They then examined the nature of these allowances and decided that they were intangible assets and not financial instruments. Since they are intangible assets, IFRIC 3 recommended that, regardless of whether emissions allowances have been allocated free of charge or purchased, they should be treated in accordance with IAS 38 Intangible Assets (equivalent to AASB 138). Under this standard, financial statement preparers may adopt one of the two alternatives for subsequent measurement of intangibles: the cost method or the revaluation method. With a cost method, intangibles are subsequently measured at cost less amortisation and impairment. Since a revaluation model can only be adopted where intangibles are traded in an active market, EUAs will meet this requirement. Under this approach, emissions allowances are carried at fair value, with gains recognised under ‘Equity’ in the balance sheet as a revaluation surplus and the increase in the revaluation surplus included in the statement of comprehensive income as an item of ‘other comprehensive income’.

IAS 38 is also explicit that intangible assets held for sale in the ordinary course of business (such as trading) are to be accounted for as inventory in accordance with IAS 2 Inventories (equivalent to AASB 102).



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |


Similar works:

«updated Jan. 2016 SEAN M. O’CONNOR University of Washington School of Law Box 353020, Seattle, WA USA 206.543.7491 || soconnor@uw.edu ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS University of Washington School of Law, Seattle, WA 4/14 Chair, Center for Advanced Studies and Research on Innovation Policy (formerly titled Assistant Dean for Law, Business & Technology); Founder and Faculty Director, Cannabis Law & Policy Project. Oversee budget, staff, outreach, fundraising, partnerships, and marketing across multiple...»

«Bollywood for all the demand for audio described Bollywood films Sonali Rai The quantitative research for this report was done by Agroni Research. Agroni Research Bow Business Centre 15-159 Bow Road London E3 2SE Tel: 020 8981 1020 Fax: 020 8983 4136 Email: info@agroni.co.uk Website: www.agroni.co.uk Project Steering Group Heather Cryer Joan Greening Alison Handford Anna Jones Leen Petré For further information about this research, contact: Royal National Institute of Blind People Media and...»

«THE POWER OF PERSEVERANCE GET EVOLVED ™ WEEVOLVE BANK &THAT EACH AT UNDERSTAND TRUST, CLIENT IS ANCLIENTS AS INDIVIDUALS WE SEE OUR INDIVIDUAL, EACH WITH UNIQUE NEEDS, DESIRES AND GOALS. NOT JUST ANOTHER ACCOUNT. OUR GOAL IS TO ACCOUNT ON OUR BOOKS. NOT JUST ANOTHER DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT PLANSWORK CLOSELY WITH WHICH IS WHY WE THAT OUR CLIENTS TO RECOGNIZE THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT UNIQUENESS OF MEET THEIR PLANS THAT WORK TO EVERY CLIENT’S SITUATION. PERSONAL OBJECTIVES. PLANS THAT EVOLVE TO...»

«Joint Statement of Indigenous Peoples, Smallholders and NGOs to IFC Consultation on Palm Oil Jakarta, May 2010 Joint Statement of Indigenous Peoples, Smallholders and NGOs to IFC Consultation on Palm Oil Jakarta, May 2010 This statement may be reproduced, provided that acknowledgement is made to Forest Peoples Programme and Sawit Watch. 1c Fosseway Business Centre, Stratford Road, Moreton-in-Marsh GL56 9NQ, UK Tel: +44 (0)1608 652893 Fax: +44 (0)1608 652878 info@forestpeoples.org...»

«Stanford University Predicting Volatility in Equity Markets Using Macroeconomic News CS 229 Final Project Authors: Supervisors: Carolyn Campbell Professor Andrew Ng Rujia Jiang (TA) Youssef Ahres William Wright Dec 11, 2015 1. Introduction On June 26, 2015, months of debt negotiation between the Greek government, headed by Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, and its creditors, including the IMF and fellow Eurozone countries, broke off abruptly. Tsipras announced a snap referendum regarding the...»

«COMMITMENT ENHANCES KNOWLEDGE SHARING AGAINST OPPORTUNISM IN NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT Richard C. M. Yam City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong mery@cityu.edu.hk Esther P. Y. Tang Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong msesther@polyu.edu.hk Cliff C. H. Chan City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 50648297@student.cityu.edu.hk Abstract: In today business, firms are riding on the wave of globalization to enhance competitiveness through business networking or corporate collaboration. Firms...»

«RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EU TAXATION Assoc. Prof. Flavia Barna Ph.D West University from Timişoara Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Timişoara, Romania Assist. Petru-Ovidiu Mura Ph. D Student West University from Timişoara Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Timişoara, Romania Abstract: Anticipating the economic and social change, European Union member states have decided to restructure their aspirations and fiscal priorities. European Union fiscal policy aims...»

«TI 2004-028/1 Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper A Discussion of Maximin Vitaly Pruzhansky Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and Tinbergen Institute. Tinbergen Institute The Tinbergen Institute is the institute for economic research of the Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Tinbergen Institute Amsterdam Roetersstraat 31 1018 WB Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel.: +31(0)20 551 3500 Fax:...»

«Agricultural Water Pricing: Australia ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation...»

«A COMPARISON OF TPC AND THE POLLIN, HEINTZ AND HERNDON REVENUE ESTIMATES FOR BERNIE SANDERS’S FINANCIAL TRANSACTION TAX PROPOSAL James R. Nunns April 12, 2016 ABSTRACT Presidential candidate Bernie Sander proposed a financial transaction tax to finance universal access to higher education. TPC estimated that it would raise $52 billion in its first year while Pollin, Heintz and Herndon estimated it would raise $300 billion. This brief reconciles those differences. The Pollin, et al, estimate...»

«Committee on the Global Financial System The role of ratings in structured finance: issues and implications Report submitted by a Working Group established by the Committee on the Global Financial System January 2005 Copies of publications are available from: Bank for International Settlements Press & Communications CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland E-mail: publications@bis.org Fax: +41 61 280 9100 and +41 61 280 8100 This publication is available on the BIS website (www.bis.org). © Bank for...»

«Middle States Commission on Higher Education 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2680 Phone: 267-284-5000 Fax: 215-662-5501 www.msche.org Guidelines Selection of Peer Evaluators (Effective January 22, 2010) Revised October 30, 2012 The Commission’s volunteer peer evaluators include team chairs, team members, periodic review report reviewers, substantive change committee members, finance associates and Commissioners. They are the foundation of the Commission’s multilayered...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2017 www.abstract.dislib.info - Abstracts, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.