No description available.

Carbon is a metric at the centre of contemporary debates. It is invoked to explain responses to climate change and justify political decisions over the economy and environment. Its ubiquity might suggest that the definition of carbon is broadly agreed upon, but along with greenhouse gas (GHG) measurements, articulating carbon as a commodity has incorporated debates over sustainable development (SD). The use of market-based mechanisms to manage carbon quantities results in articulations of the concept that reinforce consumption as a means to achieve public policy aims, but these are also contested. This research examines the concept of carbon to explore what might be taken-for-granted or overlooked when carbon is invoked. The research takes an ethnographic approach to carbon by examining offsetting – paying for reductions in GHG emissions at one location to make up for a continuation or increase of emissions at another. The novelty, complexity and lack of trust in carbon offsetting have resulted in numerous voluntary standards to improve consumer confidence in this commodity. The standard organisations’ position in codifying, measuring and accrediting carbon makes them valuable sites at which to describe the materialities of the concept. I use data collected from the administrative offices of two voluntary carbon offset standards in 2010-11 to explore what is included and excluded within carbon as it was enacted at these sites. Carbon is described in this research as an assemblage and a multiplicity – it is articulated in varying ways by actors within offset markets. Through the work of standards organisations, the “orthodoxies” of offsetting are identified as taken-for-granted features of carbon. In contrast, the position of SD is identified as variable across different articulations of carbon. Using a post-Actor Network Theory approach innovatively combined with Suchman’s typology of legitimacy, this diversity in carbon is not normatively evaluated; instead the focus is on how assemblages of carbon differentiate the legitimacy of SD as a feature of offsetting. Some take SD for granted as an inherent aspect of offsetting, for others it is a desirable feature, but not necessary. Alternatively it could be offered as an add-on possibility without suggesting SD implied better offsetting, and for others offsetting was best enacted without assembling SD concerns. Exploring carbon as an assemblage demonstrates the continuous and flexible constructions of carbon as a commodity and concept. When examined in detail, the marketing strategies and technical rules of different standards produce varying articulations of carbon. Furthermore, this research explores how the work of voluntary carbon offset standards excludes the scrutiny of sites of consumption of offsets. This exclusion, as with the integration of SD, is notable for the differences in how it is articulated by standard staff – challenged by some, taken-for-granted by others but with diverse rationales for each position. These features are informative in relation to the roles ascribed to voluntary standards across other commodities as well as in relation to carbon. Attending to the multiplicity that exists in the daily practices of offset markets suggests possibilities for those looking to stabilise or reform the concept of carbon as well as understanding the activities of voluntary standards.

Studiens syfte har varit att analysera och jämföra utvecklingen samt harmoniseringen av hållbarhetsrapportering av The Big 4 i Sverige och Storbritannien under fyra löpande år (2016–2019). Denna studie genomfördes eftersom hålbarhetsrapportering blir allt mer väsentlig och revisionsföretagen har den kunskap som krävs om ämnet. Därför blir det relevant att analysera The Big 4:s egna hållbarhetsredovisningar. EU har skapat ett nytt EU-direktiv år 2014 i syfte att främja hållbarhetsrapporteringen och dess harmonisering på regional nivå. EU-direktivet har påverkat Sveriges och Storbritanniens nationella lagar om redovisning. Med hjälp av innehållsanalys av årsredovisningar, separata hållbarhetsrapporter och information på The Big 4:s hemsidor har empirin till studien tagits fram. För att kunna tolka den insamlade empirin har institutionella teorin, intressentteorin, legitimitetsteorin och konceptualisering om harmonisering använts. Med hjälp av detta har vi kommit fram till tre olika resultat. Det första resultatet är att The Big 4 använder olika presentationsform i respektive land. Det andra resultatet är att innehållet i The Big 4:s hållbarhetsrapporter skiljer sig mellan de två länderna. Det tredje och sista resultatet är att alla företag som tillhör The Big 4 i Sverige och Storbritannien ingår i FNGC samarbetet. / The purpose of the study was to analyze and compare the development and harmonization of the sustainability reporting of The Big 4 in Sweden and the UK over four consecutive years (2016–2019). This study was done because of sustainability reporting is becoming increasingly important and auditing companies have the knowledge required on the subject. Therefore, it becomes relevant to analyze The Big 4s sustainability reports. The EU has created a new EU-directive in 2014 to promote sustainability reporting and its harmonization at a regional level. The EU-directive has affected Sweden's and the UK's national accounting laws. Using content analysis of annual reports, separate sustainability reports and information published on The Big 4s websites, the empirical data for the study has been developed. To be able to interpret the empirical data collected, institutional theory, stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory and conceptualization of non-financial reporting harmonization have been used. With this we have come to three different results. The first result is that The Big 4 uses different presentation form in each country. The second result is that the contents of The Big 4:s sustainability reports differ between the two countries. The third and final result is that all companies belonging to The Big 4 in Sweden and the UK are part of the FNGC collaboration.

In recent decades, political scientists have devoted substantial attention to the changing role of the state towards more inclusion of non-state actors in policymaking. This deliberative turn, or move towards governance, may signal inability to handle complex problems without cooperation with nonstate actors. On the other hand, governance is frequently credited with generating legitimate decision-making processes and results. In some instances, non-governmental actors have even taken the lead in policymaking. One archetype of such private governance, which has received significant scholarly attention, is forest certification. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is frequently described as the most democratic and therefore legitimate forest certification organization since it grants equal voting rights to three stakeholder groups in the formulation of criteria for responsible forestry: environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), social groups (indigenous peoples and labor organizations) and forest owners. However, in Sweden, a country often described as a role model in forest certification, the FSC has increasingly received critique for failing to generate legitimate processes and results, and recently three of five ENGOs have chosen to exit the FSC organization. Such processes of de-legitimation have received little attention in the forest certification literature. This thesis therefore provides a critical assessment of the legitimacy of forest certification in Sweden. Legitimacy is analyzed through concerned stakeholders’ perceptions of both procedural qualities (input legitimacy) and problem-solving capacity (output legitimacy). This study of legitimacy is combined with an assessment of the ability of certification to enhance environmental protection, defined as changes in both forest management practices and biophysical conditions. The thesis focuses not the least on legitimacy on the local level, which is where the actual implementation takes place. Today local studies of the legitimacy of forest certification are rare. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods are applied and a number of sources are analyzed: forest monitoring data, survey data, interviews with and documents produced by the participating stakeholders. Papers I and IV analyze the perceived legitimacy of forest certification, while Papers II and III analyze forest certification schemes’ ability to enhance environmental protection. The results show that a process of de-legitimation is occurring in Swedish forest certification. In particular, certification has lost legitimacy with ENGOs, which increasingly consider Swedish forest certification to lack both input legitimacy and output legitimacy. Moreover, although the Swedish FSC standard pays attention to reindeer husbandry, the results show that reindeer herders consider themselves to have limited power to influence long-term forest planning and management (low output legitimacy). The forest industry, on the other hand, increasingly grants legitimacy to forest certification due to customer demands, which are created not the least by pressures from international ENGOs and by EU regulation. The results also show that Swedish forest companies have paid more attention to their environmental practices after obtaining certification. However, to what extent these changes result in positive environmental impacts remains uncertain, especially since forests in Sweden grow slowly, which requires analyses over time. There are also measurement problems resulting from the low certification rate among small-scale forest owners and from the fact that certified small-scale owners tend to be more active in their management. These findings highlight that research on private forest governance should not neglect the role of the state, neither as a buyer nor as a regulator. These findings also suggest that further research should pay attention to power asymmetries in private governance and develop methods for better understanding and evaluating the certification schemes’ environmental and social impacts.