The Impact of Generational Accounting on Environmental Interactive Strategies of Capital Market Companies

Iranian Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance

مقاله 3، دوره 9، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 30، فروردین 2025، صفحه 33-50   

نوع مقاله: Original Article

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/ijaaf.2025.43869.1304

نویسندگان

Saleh Orfizadeh¹؛ Mehdi Safari Gerayli²؛ Mohammadreza Abdoli^{* 1}؛ Hasan Valiyan¹

¹Department of Accounting, Shahrood Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrood, Iran

²Department of Accounting, Bandar gaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bandar gaz,Iran

چکیده

Due to environmental tensions and challenges, environmental functions have evolved from mere social responsibility into strategies for sustainable development. Meanwhile, a conflict exists between the interests of companies, external stakeholders, and the social environment, leading to differences in managers’ attitudes toward the use of environmental development strategies. This research aims to investigate the effect of generational accounting on the interactive strategies of capital market companies in terms of environmental interaction. The research sample includes 392 managers at various levels of companies listed on the stock exchange during 2021-2022. Additionally, partial least squares (PLS) analysis was employed to fit the model. The research indicates that generational accounting positively and significantly affects environmental interactive strategies in capital market companies. The findings suggest that the integration resulting from the implementation of institutional and governance guidelines at the capital market level fosters interactive values and norms between companies and the environment. This approach not only protects the interests of the current generation but also, based on long-term foresight, mitigates the burden and pressure of environmental costs from the current generation to future generations. This is the first research to investigate the effect of generational accounting on interactive environmental strategies. Although this area is significant for developing theoretical literature and providing a practical foundation for reducing information asymmetry in environmental accounting, there has been limited research. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

Cost and utility of Green؛ Environmental Interactive Strategies؛ Generational Accounting

مراجع

1. Ablett, J. (1996). Generational accounting and intergenerational balance. Agenda: A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, 3(4), pp. 407-418.
2. Arévalo, P., Berti, K., Caretta, A. and Eckefeldt, P. (2019). The intergenerational dimension of fiscal sustainability (No. 112). Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission. European Commission. The U.S.
3. Bekessy, S. A., Runge, M. C., Kusmanoff, A. M., Keith, D. A. and Wintle, B. A. (2018). Ask not what nature can do for you: A critique of ecosystem services as a communication strategy. Biological Conservation, 224, pp. 71-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.05.017
4. Brauch, H. G. (2011). Concepts of security threats, challenges, vulnerabilities and risks. In Coping with global environmental change, disasters and security: Threats, challenges, vulnerabilities and risks (pp. 61-106). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Berlin
5. Brulle, R. J. (1996). Environmental discourse and social movement organizations: A historical and rhetorical perspective on the development of US environmental organizations. Sociological Inquiry, 66(1), pp. 58-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1996.tb00209.x
6. Cao, K., Ye, Q. and Qiu, S. (2023). Environmental design strategies for integrating campus culture with students’ emotional needs. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 162, p. 01019). EDP Sciences, Wuhan, China. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316201019
7. Chan, K. H., Chong, L. L. and Ng, T. H. (2022). Integrating extended theory of planned behaviour and norm activation model to examine the effects of environmental practices among Malaysian companies. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 14(5), pp. 851-873. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-08-2021-0317
8. Cho, C. H., Jérôme, T. and Maurice, J. (2022). Assessing the impact of environmental accounting research: evidence from citation and journal data. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(5), pp. 989-1014. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-09-2021-0384
9. Choi, S. H. and Szewczyk, S. H. (2018). Corporate governance structure and strategic change: evidence from major acquisitions. Managerial Finance, 44(2), pp. 222-240. https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-05-2017-0169
10. De Tommaso, S. F. N. and Rodrigues, I. (2023). Understanding how firms implemented shared value strategy: a Brazilian business context. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 34(3), pp. 721-740. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-05-2022-0140
11. Decoster, A., Flawinne, X. and Vanleenhove, P. (2014). Generational accounts for Belgium: fiscal sustainability at a glance. Empirica, 41, pp. 663-686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-013-9223-1
12. Draper, N., Van Ewijk, C., Lever, M. and Mehlkopf, R. (2014). Stochastic generational accounting applied to reforms of Dutch occupational pensions. De Economist, 162(2), pp. 287-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10645-014-9232-x
13. Gao, H., Li, F., Zhang, J. and Sun, Y. (2023). A Study of the Strategic Interaction in Environmental Regulation Based on Spatial Effects. Systems, 11(2), p. 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11020062
14. Gokhale, J., Raffelhüschen, B. and Walliser, J. (1995). The burden of German unification: a generational accounting approach. FinanzArchiv/Public Finance Analysis, 3(2), pp. 141-165. https://doi.org/10.26509/frbc-wp-199412
15. Gunarathne, N., Lee, K. H. and Hitigala Kaluarachchilage, P. K. (2023). Tackling the integration challenge between environmental strategy and environmental management accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 36(1), pp. 63-95. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2020-4452
16. Hajiha, Z.and Goli, A. (2016). Explanation of the Generational Accounting Conceptual model, Accounting and Auditing Quarterly, 19(3), pp. 56-74. (In Persian).
17. Heerden, J. V. and Schoeman, N. J. (2000). Generational Accounting: A Comparison Between Various Taxes’ Incidence on the Young and Old in South Africa. Studies in Economics and Econometrics, 24(2), pp. 35-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/03796205.2000.12129269
18. Herndl, C. G. and Brown, S. C. (Eds.) (1996). Green culture: Environmental rhetoric in contemporary America. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 3(1), pp. 1-155. https://doi.org/10.1093/isle/5.1.130
19. Klumpes, P. (2001). Generational accountability of public sector management‐A case study of the State Authorities Superannuation Board of New South Wales. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 14(2), pp. 166-189. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570110389305
20. Kotlikoff, L. J. (1984). Taxation and savings: A neoclassical perspective. Journal of Economics, Literature, 10(1), pp. 65-88. https://doi.org/10.3386/w1302
21. Kotlikoff, L. J. and Raffelhüschen, B. (1999). Generational accounting around the globe. American Economic Review, 89(2), pp. 161-166. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226032184.001.0001
22. Lalbar, A., Gholami Jamkarani, R. and Jahangirnia, H. (2020). Identifying the components of the ecosystem accounting system using exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Journal of Management Accounting and Auditing Knowledge, 9(35), pp. 35-49.
23. Leibfritz, W. (1996). Generational accounting: an international comparison. Intereconomics, 31, pp. 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02927167
24. Maleki, A., Salehi, S., Rabie, A. and Yazarloo, R. (2017). Using Fairclough model in the typology of environmental discourses in Iran (discourses of justice, protection, risk and modernization). Environmental Education and Sustainable Development, 5(2), pp. 59-76. (In Persian).
25. Mantizadeh, M., Karimi Goghri, H. (2016). Critical analysis of environmental ethical theories: presentation of Islamic ethical theories. Journal of bioethical-scientific research, 6(20): 99-125. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22037/bioeth.v6i20.13949
26. Meghdari, S. Sadat., Yousefi, M. (2022). Critical Discourse Analysis of Advertising Texts of Natural Schools: With the Approach of Environmental Linguistics, Linguistic Studies, 13(1): 99-127. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.18298/ijlet.2301
27. Moharam nejad, N., Tehrani, M. (2010). Review on Social Theories and Environmental Management. Human & Environment, 8(2): 3-11. (In Persian). https://doi.org/1007/s11948-015-9700-y
28. Murphy, N. A., Hall, J. A., Ruben, M. A., Frauendorfer, D., Schmid Mast, M., Johnson, K. E. and Nguyen, L. (2019). Predictive validity of thin-slice nonverbal behavior from social interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), pp. 983-993.
29. Norgaard, R. B. (2010). Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological economics, 69(6), pp. 1219-1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009
30. Pennnycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical Approaches to TESOL, Tesol Quarterly, 33(3), pp. 329-348. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587668
31. Petera, P., Wagner, J. and Pakšiová, R. (2021). The influence of environmental strategy, environmental reporting and environmental management control system on environmental and economic performance. Energies, 14(15), p. 4637. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154637
32. Pickering, C. M. and Norman, P. (2020). Assessing discourses about controversial environmental management issues on social media: Tweeting about wild horses in a national park. Journal of Environmental Management, 275(1), A. 111244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111244
33. Pinheiro, J. (2021). Generational Accounting in Portugal: An assessment of long-term fiscal sustainability and intergenerational inequality. Portuguese Economic Journal, 20(2), pp. 181-221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10258-020-00180-6
34. Rounaghi, M. M. (2019). Economic analysis of using green accounting and environmental accounting to identify environmental costs and sustainability indicators. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 35(4), pp. 504-512. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-03-2019-0056
35. Rozema, J. G., Bond, A. J., Cashmore, M. and Chilvers, J. (2012). An investigation of environmental and sustainability discourses associated with the substantive purposes of environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 33(1), pp. 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.11.003
36. Sanei, D., Sokhanvar, J. (2017). Cultural-Environmental Discourse in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. Critical Language and Literary Studies, 14(19): 209-232. (In Persian). https://clls.sbu.ac.ir/article_100014.html
37. Schnaiberg, A. (1980). The environment. New York: Oxford University Press. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2572532
38. Singh, S. K. (2019). Sustainable business and environment management. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(1), pp. 2-4. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-01-2019-213
39. Stranieri, S., Varacca, A., Casati, M., Capri, E. and Soregaroli, C. (2021). Adopting environmentally-friendly certifications: Transaction cost and capabilities perspectives within the Italian wine supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 27(7), pp. 33-48. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-12-2020-0598
40. Taylor, J. (2013). Intergenerational justice: a useful perspective for heritage conservation, CeROArt, Oxford University, UK. https://doi.org/10.4000/ceroart.3510
41. Tu, J. C. and Huang, H. S. (2015). Analysis on the relationship between green accounting and green design for enterprises. Sustainability, 7(5), pp. 6264-6277. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7056264
42. Van Koppen, C. S. A. (2000). Resource, arcadia, lifeworld. Nature concepts in environmental sociology. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(3), pp. 300-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00150
43. Wilson, K. A. and Law, E. A. (2016). How to avoid underselling biodiversity with ecosystem services: a response to Silvertown. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(5), pp. 332-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.03.002