Environmental and Carbon Costing Systems: A Systematic Review of Green Cost Accounting Practices

This systematic review focuses on the history of environmental and carbon costing systems, its application, and development of the methodology in the industries and international environment. The review is a synthesis of evidence by key frameworks of Environmental Management Accounting (EMA), Material Flow Cost Accounting (MFCA), Full Cost Accounting (FCA), carbon foot printing methods, and internal carbon pricing mechanisms. It has been found that these costing systems are very important in enhancing cost visibility, waste streams, resource efficiency, and corporate sustainability strategies. MFCA and EMA continue to represent the most common form of implementation, especially in manufacturing and high impact industries whereas carbon accounting and pricing instruments become even more popular in support of making investment decisions and estimating climate risks. Although they have potential, adoption is not even because not all are measured, standard guidelines are not used, data quality is not always good, especially with Scope 3 emissions, and is not well integrated with financial reporting. There is also a lack of longitudinal studies, and SMEs and developing economies are underrepresented using empirical evidence. The review also indicates an increasing interest in digitalization, such as AI monitoring and real time emission tracking, but they are not in practical use. The improvement of methodological consistency and the broader and more extensive research in a variety of industry and other geographic settings will help to develop green cost accounting and aid low carbon decision making.

Environmental Costing, Material Flow Cost Accounting, Carbon Accounting

1. Amalia, H., & Aji, S. (2025). THE INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS AND CARBON PERFORMANCE ON FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE. International Journal of Accounting Innovation. https://doi.org/10.61796/ijai.v1i2.11 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Asuzu, O., Ayinla, B., Ugochukwu, C., Atadoga, A., Ndubuisi, N., & Adeleye, R. (2024). Environmental costing and sustainable accounting: A comprehensive review: Delving into methods of accounting for environmental impacts in financial statements. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.2.0439 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Falagas, M., Pitsouni, E., Malietzis, G., & Pappas, G. (2007). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22, 338 - 342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Glenk, G. (2025). Corporate Carbon Accounting: Current Practices and Opportunities for Research. Foundations and Trends® in Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1561/1400000080-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Goenka, N., Chawhan, M., Tiwari, S., & , R. (2025). Accounting for Tomorrow: Environmental Costs and Business Growth. European Economic Letters. https://doi.org/10.52783/eel.v15i2.3224 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Gusenbauer, M. (2024). Beyond Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: An evaluation of the backward and forward citation coverage of 59 databases' citation indices. Research Synthesis Methods, 15, 802 - 817. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1729 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Harzing, A., & Alakangas, S. (2015). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106, 787 - 804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Li, Y., Yang, X., Du, E., Liu, Y., Zhang, S., Yang, C., Zhang, N., & Liu, C. (2024). A review on carbon emission accounting approaches for the electricity power industry. Applied Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.122681 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Lin, Y., & Xu, Z. (2025). Low carbon financial evaluation system and application of construction engineering based on AHP-Topsis method. Environmental Research Communications, 7. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ae05f7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Liu, J., Liu, H., & Liu, Y. (2025). A Sustainability-Oriented Framework for Life Cycle Environmental Cost Accounting and Carbon Financial Optimization in Prefabricated Steel Structures. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104296 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Liu, J., Liu, H., & Liu, Y. (2025). A Sustainability-Oriented Framework for Life Cycle Environmental Cost Accounting and Carbon Financial Optimization in Prefabricated Steel Structures. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104296 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Liu, Z., Sun, T., Yu, Y., Ke, P., Deng, Z., Lu, C., Huo, D., & Ding, X. (2022). Real-time carbon emission accounting technology toward carbon neutrality. Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2021.12.019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Luo, W., Zhang, Y., Gao, Y., Liu, Y., Shi, C., & Wang, Y. (2020). Life cycle carbon cost of buildings under carbon trading and carbon tax system in China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 102509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102509 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Martín-Martín, A., Orduña-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & López-Cózar, E. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. J. Informetrics, 12, 1160-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Miller, G., Novan, K., & Jenn, A. (2022). Hourly accounting of carbon emissions from electricity consumption. Environmental Research Letters, 17. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac6147 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Nyakuwanika, M., & Panicker, M. (2025). The Role of Environmental Accounting in Mitigating Climate Change: ESG Disclosures and Effective Reporting—A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18090480 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Nyakuwanika, M., & Panicker, M. (2025). The Role of Environmental Accounting in Mitigating Climate Change: ESG Disclosures and Effective Reporting—A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18090480 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ortiz-Cea, V., Dote-Pardo, J., Geldres-Weiss, V., & Peña-Acuña, V. (2025). The Role of Activity-Based Costing in Reducing Environmental Impact: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031275 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Ortiz-Cea, V., Dote-Pardo, J., Geldres-Weiss, V., & Peña-Acuña, V. (2025). The Role of Activity-Based Costing in Reducing Environmental Impact: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031275 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Page, M., McKenzie, J., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., Mulrow, C., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J., Akl, E., Brennan, S., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J., Hrõbjartsson, A., Lalu, M., Li, T., Loder, E., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L., Stewart, L., Thomas, J., Tricco, A., Welch, V., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2020). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Page, M., McKenzie, J., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., Mulrow, C., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J., & Moher, D. (2020). Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement.. Journal of clinical epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/jb4dx [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Page, M., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., Mulrow, C., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J., Akl, E., Brennan, S., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J., Hrõbjartsson, A., Lalu, M., Li, T., Loder, E., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L., Stewart, L., Thomas, J., Tricco, A., Welch, V., Whiting, P., & McKenzie, J. (2020). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Pranckute, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today's Academic World. Publ., 9, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Rodrigues, S., & Da Silva, E. (2024). Implementation of environmental life cycle costing: Procedures, challenges, and opportunities. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 29, 803 - 837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02268-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Sanakal, A. (2025). Green Costing: Using AI in SAP for Sustainable Product Costing Models. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology. https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25may909 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Solarin, A. S. (2025). Carbon pricing mechanisms for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging sustainable industrial practices. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 25(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2025.25.2.0350 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Tsai, W., Shen, Y., Lee, P., Chen, H., Kuo, L., & Huang, C. (2012). Integrating information about the cost of carbon through activity-based costing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 36, 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: the use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, 123, 321 - 335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Examining Inequality Rate with Account Ownership in Nigeria: A Gender Based Perspective
• Accounting Curriculum Alignment and Graduate Employability in Nigerian Polytechnics