One recent paper that caught my attention is “Making things (that don’t exist) count: a study of Scope 4 emissions accounting claims” by Anna Young-Ferris, Arunima Malik, Victoria Calderbank, and Jubin Jacob-John, published in Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal (AAAJ).
Read the abstract here.
The paper examines so-called “Scope 4” emissions—avoided emissions resulting from energy efficiency initiatives or other actions that reduce emissions relative to a counterfactual. These claims are not part of the established Scopes 1, 2, and 3 framework, yet are increasingly referenced by firms and market actors.
What I found especially interesting:
- Scope 4 overlaps with some methodologies in the ACCU Scheme—such as avoided deforestation and energy efficiency projects.
- The paper frames its analysis around legitimacy, noting how Scope 4 claims borrow the appearance of being part of the accepted emissions framework. Yet, it doesn’t explicitly invoke legitimacy theory. This shows how legitimacy is being performed through accounting even when not theorised directly.
For my own work, this is a useful signal. I plan to explore how auditing contributes to the legitimisation of the ACCU scheme. This paper’s treatment of Scope 4 strengthens the case that audit plays a constitutive role in making contested things—such as offset credits—appear legitimate. It also reminds me to refine how I frame legitimacy in relation to assurance, market devices, and audit logics.
The authors conclude with caution: Scope 4 claims risk distracting attention from the critical task of reducing absolute emissions. This resonates with wider debates about offsetting and greenwashing.
In short: this is a sharp, thought-provoking study that opens space for further discussion of audit-made legitimacy in carbon markets.
