METHODOLOGICAL DEFICIENCIES AND THE INTEGRATION OF GREEN ACCOUNTING IN UZBEKISTAN’S ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITS: AN OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS
Keywords:
green accounting,, environmental audit methodology,, lifecycle assessment,, IoT emissions monitoring,, carbon pricing, SEEA,, ESG reporting, Uzbekistan industrial sector.Abstract
This article examines four interconnected methodological failures that prevent
Uzbekistan’s environmental auditing system from functioning at the quality level that effective
environmental governance requires. The central failure is the near-total absence of green
accounting systems within domestic industrial enterprises, which deprives auditors of the financial
data necessary for reliable environmental liability assessment. Compounding this are generic
audit protocols that miss sector-specific environmental risks, the dominance of manual
retrospective emissions data over real-time automated monitoring, and the non-integration of
lifecycle assessment and carbon pricing tools into audit practice. Each failure is analyzed against
operational data from Uzbekistan’s industrial sector and compared with reform experience from
Kazakhstan, South Korea, Germany, and China. The article concludes with a sequenced threephase
reform program and assesses its feasibility within Uzbekistan’s existing institutional and
legislative structures.
References
Uzbek Association of Accountants and Auditors. (2022). Environmental expenditure reporting practices: Industrial sector survey (Research Report No. 8). Tashkent: UAAA.
United Nations Statistics Division. (2012). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Central Framework. New York: United Nations.
Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. London: Prentice Hall.
European Commission. (2024). Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive: First-year implementation review. Brussels: European Commission.
Azimov, K., & Park, S. (2022). Environmental accounting standards in Central Asian transition economies: A comparative assessment. Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 7(1), 1–18.
OECD. (2022). Environmental Performance Reviews: Uzbekistan 2022. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/dc5b2e4d-en
World Bank. (2022). Industrial monitoring and enforcement: Evidence from China, South Korea, and Central Asia. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2023). Draft amendments to the Law on Accounting: Environmental reporting provisions. Tashkent: Ministry of Finance.
Institute of Chemistry of Plant Substances, Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences. (2021). Soil and groundwater contamination at cotton processing facilities in southern Uzbekistan (Technical Report No. 14). Tashkent: ICPS.
Kim, H., & Lee, J. (2020). Sector-specific environmental audit protocols in South Korea: Development and evaluation. Journal of Environmental Management, 261, 110–124.
Nazarov, F., & Ergashev, R. (2021). Industrial emissions monitoring accuracy: Uzbek enterprise comparison study. Uzbek Chemical Journal, 4, 55–67.
Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China. (2021). Industrial continuous emissions monitoring: National evaluation report 2016–2020. Beijing: MEE.
Zhang, W., & Chen, L. (2021). Continuous emissions monitoring and compliance: Evidence from China’s industrial sector 2017–2020. Environmental Science & Policy, 118, 45–58.
International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ISO 14040: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. Geneva: ISO.
International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ISO 14044: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. Geneva: ISO.
Republic of Uzbekistan. (2023). Presidential Decree No. UP-158 on the Strategy “Uzbekistan–2030”. Official Gazette of the Republic of Uzbekistan.