Potential users’ perceptions of general purpose water accounting reports

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceptions of potential users about water accounting reports prepared under Australian general purpose water accounting (GPWA), which applies financial accounting techniques to water and could be extended to other areas of natural resource management. In particular, the paper examines the extent to which users believe GPWA reports are useful and facilitate the discharge of accountability by water managers. Design/methodology/approach – As a theoretical lens the authors apply an extended version of Gray et al.’s (1996) accountability model. The authors utilise mixed method research design comprising a questionnaire administered to users with water-related interests and an analysis of public submissions to the Water Accounting Standards Board on the Exposure Draft of Australian Water Accounting Standard 1. Findings – Overall, users perceive the introduction of GPWA as useful and believe that the benefits will outweigh the costs. The adoption of a financial accounting approach in terms of accounting standards and prescribed methods for booking and disclosing water “transactions” was broadly supported. In terms of the main users of reports, there was some ambiguity but findings suggested that government agencies were likely to be the main users of GPWA. Users were also concerned about the degree of judgement required to determine the identity and boundaries of a “water report entity”. Perhaps the most controversial aspect related to accountability; while the Accountability Statement was broadly supported there was little consensus that GPWA collectively discharged the accountability of water managers. Taken collectively, these results suggest that GPWA may be more useful for improving management performance than accountability. Practical implications – The findings suggest that future iterations of the standard need to reconsider how accountability might be discharged through the production of GPWA. The broad support for GPWA suggests, however, that the financial accounting approach – and hence the accounting community – may also make a valuable contribution to other areas of natural resource accounting. Originality/value – This study contributes to the emerging but still limited literature on GPWA and the fundamentally different approach to natural resource accounting it represents. While some previous studies have examined potential users of GPWA none have done so after the standard has been fully developed, and no previous studies have adopted the mixed research design utilised in this study.

LanguageEnglish
Pages80-110
Number of pages31
JournalAccounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal
Volume29
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 18 Jan 2016

Fingerprint

Water
Accountability
Financial accounting
Accounting standards
Research design
Natural resource accounting
Managers
Mixed methods research
Questionnaire
Costs
Natural resource management
Draft
Management performance
Government agencies
Design methodology

Cite this

@article{e9708bc27fbe46579855480d3e7454e9,
title = "Potential users’ perceptions of general purpose water accounting reports",
abstract = "Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceptions of potential users about water accounting reports prepared under Australian general purpose water accounting (GPWA), which applies financial accounting techniques to water and could be extended to other areas of natural resource management. In particular, the paper examines the extent to which users believe GPWA reports are useful and facilitate the discharge of accountability by water managers. Design/methodology/approach – As a theoretical lens the authors apply an extended version of Gray et al.’s (1996) accountability model. The authors utilise mixed method research design comprising a questionnaire administered to users with water-related interests and an analysis of public submissions to the Water Accounting Standards Board on the Exposure Draft of Australian Water Accounting Standard 1. Findings – Overall, users perceive the introduction of GPWA as useful and believe that the benefits will outweigh the costs. The adoption of a financial accounting approach in terms of accounting standards and prescribed methods for booking and disclosing water “transactions” was broadly supported. In terms of the main users of reports, there was some ambiguity but findings suggested that government agencies were likely to be the main users of GPWA. Users were also concerned about the degree of judgement required to determine the identity and boundaries of a “water report entity”. Perhaps the most controversial aspect related to accountability; while the Accountability Statement was broadly supported there was little consensus that GPWA collectively discharged the accountability of water managers. Taken collectively, these results suggest that GPWA may be more useful for improving management performance than accountability. Practical implications – The findings suggest that future iterations of the standard need to reconsider how accountability might be discharged through the production of GPWA. The broad support for GPWA suggests, however, that the financial accounting approach – and hence the accounting community – may also make a valuable contribution to other areas of natural resource accounting. Originality/value – This study contributes to the emerging but still limited literature on GPWA and the fundamentally different approach to natural resource accounting it represents. While some previous studies have examined potential users of GPWA none have done so after the standard has been fully developed, and no previous studies have adopted the mixed research design utilised in this study.",
author = "Edward Tello and James Hazelton and Lorne Cummings",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "18",
doi = "10.1108/AAAJ-12-2013-1552",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "80--110",
journal = "Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal",
issn = "0951-3574",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing",
number = "1",

}

Potential users’ perceptions of general purpose water accounting reports. / Tello, Edward; Hazelton, James; Cummings, Lorne.

In: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1, 18.01.2016, p. 80-110.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Potential users’ perceptions of general purpose water accounting reports

AU - Tello, Edward

AU - Hazelton, James

AU - Cummings, Lorne

PY - 2016/1/18

Y1 - 2016/1/18

N2 - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceptions of potential users about water accounting reports prepared under Australian general purpose water accounting (GPWA), which applies financial accounting techniques to water and could be extended to other areas of natural resource management. In particular, the paper examines the extent to which users believe GPWA reports are useful and facilitate the discharge of accountability by water managers. Design/methodology/approach – As a theoretical lens the authors apply an extended version of Gray et al.’s (1996) accountability model. The authors utilise mixed method research design comprising a questionnaire administered to users with water-related interests and an analysis of public submissions to the Water Accounting Standards Board on the Exposure Draft of Australian Water Accounting Standard 1. Findings – Overall, users perceive the introduction of GPWA as useful and believe that the benefits will outweigh the costs. The adoption of a financial accounting approach in terms of accounting standards and prescribed methods for booking and disclosing water “transactions” was broadly supported. In terms of the main users of reports, there was some ambiguity but findings suggested that government agencies were likely to be the main users of GPWA. Users were also concerned about the degree of judgement required to determine the identity and boundaries of a “water report entity”. Perhaps the most controversial aspect related to accountability; while the Accountability Statement was broadly supported there was little consensus that GPWA collectively discharged the accountability of water managers. Taken collectively, these results suggest that GPWA may be more useful for improving management performance than accountability. Practical implications – The findings suggest that future iterations of the standard need to reconsider how accountability might be discharged through the production of GPWA. The broad support for GPWA suggests, however, that the financial accounting approach – and hence the accounting community – may also make a valuable contribution to other areas of natural resource accounting. Originality/value – This study contributes to the emerging but still limited literature on GPWA and the fundamentally different approach to natural resource accounting it represents. While some previous studies have examined potential users of GPWA none have done so after the standard has been fully developed, and no previous studies have adopted the mixed research design utilised in this study.

AB - Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceptions of potential users about water accounting reports prepared under Australian general purpose water accounting (GPWA), which applies financial accounting techniques to water and could be extended to other areas of natural resource management. In particular, the paper examines the extent to which users believe GPWA reports are useful and facilitate the discharge of accountability by water managers. Design/methodology/approach – As a theoretical lens the authors apply an extended version of Gray et al.’s (1996) accountability model. The authors utilise mixed method research design comprising a questionnaire administered to users with water-related interests and an analysis of public submissions to the Water Accounting Standards Board on the Exposure Draft of Australian Water Accounting Standard 1. Findings – Overall, users perceive the introduction of GPWA as useful and believe that the benefits will outweigh the costs. The adoption of a financial accounting approach in terms of accounting standards and prescribed methods for booking and disclosing water “transactions” was broadly supported. In terms of the main users of reports, there was some ambiguity but findings suggested that government agencies were likely to be the main users of GPWA. Users were also concerned about the degree of judgement required to determine the identity and boundaries of a “water report entity”. Perhaps the most controversial aspect related to accountability; while the Accountability Statement was broadly supported there was little consensus that GPWA collectively discharged the accountability of water managers. Taken collectively, these results suggest that GPWA may be more useful for improving management performance than accountability. Practical implications – The findings suggest that future iterations of the standard need to reconsider how accountability might be discharged through the production of GPWA. The broad support for GPWA suggests, however, that the financial accounting approach – and hence the accounting community – may also make a valuable contribution to other areas of natural resource accounting. Originality/value – This study contributes to the emerging but still limited literature on GPWA and the fundamentally different approach to natural resource accounting it represents. While some previous studies have examined potential users of GPWA none have done so after the standard has been fully developed, and no previous studies have adopted the mixed research design utilised in this study.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84956678397&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1108/AAAJ-12-2013-1552

DO - 10.1108/AAAJ-12-2013-1552

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 80

EP - 110

JO - Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

T2 - Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

JF - Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

SN - 0951-3574

IS - 1

ER -