Why environmental costs go unclassified: Accounting practices and institutional gaps in South Papua, Indonesia

  • 18 Views
  • 2 Downloads

Creative Commons License DMCA.com Protection Status
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Type of the article: Research Article

Large-scale enterprises in developing economies routinely incur environmental expenditures, yet these costs frequently remain unclassified within formal accounting systems, limiting their utility for regulatory evaluation and public accountability. This study examines how environmental cost-recording practices in large-scale enterprises relate to the Environmental Agency’s financial control function in South Papua’s hazardous waste governance system. A qualitative design was employed, drawing on interviews with eleven informants from two environmental agencies and three large-scale enterprises in the Merauke region, supplemented by secondary hazardous waste data spanning 2017 to 2022. The study finds that both enterprises incur identifiable expenditures across all four environmental management accounting cost categories, covering prevention, detection, internal failure, and external failure, yet none are formally classified as environmental costs in their financial statements. Total hazardous and toxic waste stored reached 88,172.81 cubic meters over the study period, yet the financial footprint of this activity remains invisible within existing accountability structures. The Environmental Agency’s supervisory framework is confined to technical document compliance, with no mechanism for engaging enterprise financial cost data. The absence of a regulatory demand signal for environmental cost classification emerges as a recurring and consistent explanation across all informants, operating alongside enterprise-level capacity constraints and the absence of standardized cost classification frameworks. These findings suggest that supervisory framework design warrants greater attention in efforts to close the environmental cost classification gap, and point toward areas warranting further institutional exploration, including the potential role of pollution cost benchmarks and sustainability-linked supervisory performance indicators as directions for future policy development.

 
view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Figure 1. NVivo coding diagram: Environmental Agency oversight mechanisms
    • Figure 2. NVivo coding diagram: Hazardous and toxic waste oversight dimensions
    • Figure 3. NVivo coding diagram: Environmental cost recording practices and SDG contributions
    • Table 1. Profile of informants
    • Table 2. Informant distribution
    • Table 3. Hazardous and toxic waste volume in merauke regency, 2017 to 2022
    • Table 4. Environmental expenditures by EMA cost category, PT PELINDO and PT Bio Inti Agrindo
    • Conceptualization
      Pascalina Van Sweet Sesa, Otniel Safkaur
    • Data curation
      Pascalina Van Sweet Sesa, Hesty Theresia Salle, Yohanes Leonardo Aleu Kaize
    • Formal Analysis
      Pascalina Van Sweet Sesa, Otniel Safkaur, Hesty Theresia Salle
    • Investigation
      Pascalina Van Sweet Sesa, Otniel Safkaur, Hesty Theresia Salle, Yohanes Leonardo Aleu Kaize
    • Methodology
      Pascalina Van Sweet Sesa, Otniel Safkaur
    • Project administration
      Pascalina Van Sweet Sesa
    • Supervision
      Pascalina Van Sweet Sesa, Otniel Safkaur
    • Validation
      Pascalina Van Sweet Sesa, Otniel Safkaur, Hesty Theresia Salle
    • Visualization
      Pascalina Van Sweet Sesa, Hesty Theresia Salle
    • Writing – original draft
      Pascalina Van Sweet Sesa
    • Writing – review & editing
      Pascalina Van Sweet Sesa, Otniel Safkaur, Hesty Theresia Salle, Yohanes Leonardo Aleu Kaize
    • Resources
      Yohanes Leonardo Aleu Kaize