Measuring Gas Phase Mercury Emissions from Industrial Effluents

Ippolito, Samuel J.; Sabri, Ylias M.; Bhargava, Suresh K.

doi:10.1002/9781118146644.ch3

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 168 publications

(200 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Australia provides a useful research setting as it is a significant mercury emitter on a percapita basis (Ippolito et al, 2012). Whilst the Australian region (Australia, New Zealand and Oceania) contributed only 0.4% of global emissions (UN Environment, 2019, p. 12), Australia is nonetheless one of the top ten anthropogenic mercury emitting countries (AMAP/UNEP, 2008).…”

Section: The Australian Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can databases facilitate accountability? The case of Australian mercury accounting via the National Pollutant Inventory

Ullah

Hazelton²,

Nelson³

2020

AAAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper furthers research into the potential contribution of pollutant databases for corporate accountability. We evaluate the quality of corporate and government mercury reporting via the Australian National Pollutant Inventory (NPI), which underpins Australia's reporting under the Minamata Convention, a global agreement to reduce mercury pollution.Design/methodology/approachThe qualitative characteristics of accounting information are used as a theoretical frame to analyse ten interviews with thirteen interviewees as well as 54 submissions to the 2018 governmental enquiry into the NPI.FindingsWhile Australian mercury accounting using the NPI is likely sufficient to meet the expected Minamata reporting requirements (especially in comparison to developing countries), we find significant limitations in relation to comparability, accuracy, timeliness and completeness. These limitations primarily relate to government (as opposed to industry) deficiencies, caused by insufficient funding. The findings suggest that multiple factors are required to realise the potential of pollutant databases for corporate accountability, including appropriate rules, ideological commitment and resourcingPractical implicationsThe provision of additional funding would enable the NPI to be considerably improved (for mercury as well as other pollutants), particularly in relation to the measurement and reporting of emissions from diffuse sources.Originality/valueWhilst there have been prior reviews of the NPI, none have focused on mercury, whilst conversely prior studies which have discussed mercury information have not focused on the NPI. In addition, no prior NPI studies have utilised interviews nor have engaged directly with NPI regulators. There has been little prior engagement with pollutant databases in social and environmental accounting (SEA) research.

show abstract

Section: The Australian Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%