Climate (in)justice: decolonizing public sector climate accountability and accounting in and for the majority world

Purpose While climate change has caused catastrophic consequences for both human and non-human habitats in the Anthropocene era, its impacts are unevenly distributed across the globe. Existing global climate change policies, discourses and practices – promulgated and adopted worldwide – fail to account for the systemic structural, political, historical, cultural, social and economic inequalities between the Majority and Minority World. Inspired by the decolonization agenda, this paper aims to deconstruct the Western technocratic theorization of public sector climate accounting and accountability from a Majority World perspective. Design/methodology/approach Theoretically, the paper draws from a critical “climate justice” lens and Latour's (2017) concept of “Down to Earth” to critique the limitations of dominant scientific and technocratic approaches of public sector climate accounting and accountability, which have perpetuated socio-environmental injustice. It also advocates for a new climatic regime – “Terrestrial” – that offers an alternative politics which leads towards the earth. Empirically, the paper draws from three empirical narratives to illustrate how climate injustices materialize in practice in the Majority World. Findings The paper argues that meaningful climate accountability requires reimagining political orientations beyond Minority–Majority national frontiers and adopting a planetary ethic that restores humanity's relationship with the earth. It urges international agencies and Global South states to address climate injustice by implementing a practical climate accounting and accountability framework comprising: (1) prioritizing local resilience and adaptive capacity over mitigation-focused agendas; (2) resisting neo-colonial extractive practices and exploring commonwealth governance alternatives; (3) fostering communitarian, Indigenous-informed participation; (4) rejecting hierarchical, technocratic approaches; and (5) developing alternative contextually grounded practices sensitive to local socio-political, cultural and environmental realities. Research limitations/implications Future research on public sector accounting and accountability for climate change must move beyond descriptive assessments towards transformative frameworks addressing climate injustice in the Majority World. This includes examining the empirical application of novel climate accounting models above, theorizing the potential and limitations of accounting tools for adaptation, advancing participatory accountability practices, exploring alternative accounting possibilities and extending inquiry into commonwealth governance. Latour's ideas – especially the “new climatic regime”, the terrestrial approach and the empirical science of nature-as-process – also provide valuable avenues for reimagining how climate accounting can be theorized and enacted in practice. Practical implications The paper develops a practical climate accounting and accountability framework in and for the Majority World, encapsulating five key features: (1) prioritizing local resilience and adaptive capacity over mitigation-focused agendas; (2) resisting neo-colonial extractive practices and exploring alternative models of commonwealth governance; (3) fostering communitarian, Indigenous-informed participatory initiatives; (4) rejecting hierarchical, technocratic approaches to accounting and accountability; and (5) advancing contextually grounded practices attuned to local socio-political, cultural and environmental realities, thereby addressing climate injustice in the Majority World. Originality/value Little research theorizes public sector climate accounting and accountability from the Majority World perspectives.