Privilege, Detachment, Concealment and Omission: Normalisation and GHG Reporting

This paper explores the extent to which the calculative practices that result in reported GHG data and their implications are appropriately developed and understood. GHG emissions data is considered to be more ‘meaningful’ and ‘engaging’ when it is made comparable through a process of normalisation. We argue that these normalisation practices can be problematic from a sustainability governance perspective as they potentially misrepresent the eco-efficiency, eco-effectiveness and eco-justice consequences of corporate decisions to manage GHG emissions. Drawing on the concepts of ‘ontological politics’ (Mol, 1999) and ‘calculation’ (Callon and Muniesa, 2005) we explore the development and consequences of GHG reporting through an analysis of emission data reported by Water and Sewage Companies (WASCs) in England and Wales. In this paper we demonstrate how reported GHG emission data is detached from issues of accuracy, completeness, comparability , creates a misleading linear eco-efficiency predictive narrative (Unerman and O’Dwyer, 2004), conceals the levels of uncertainty of GHG data and omits the complexity of sustainable GHG governance. Their calculative practices also detach GHG emission measures from eco-justice and eco-effectiveness considerations, concealing and omitting relevant information from key stakeholders and inhibiting the wider carbon accountability of organisations. The paper concludes by discussing the need for GHG reporting to provide disclosures which are cognizant of the inherent uncertainty and complexity of GHG emissions in order to help create wider climate change literacy and to enable sustainable governance.