click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
IESA
Accounting for Nature
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| severity of biodiversity loss (each authors position) | russel and cuckston - human activity tregidga - biodiversity atkins - extinction accounting cuckston - planet-wide biodiversity loss |
| each papers key point | russel - introduction tregidga - biodiversity offsetting rationale jones - frameworks atkins - extinction accounting - rhinos cuckston - critique for improvement cuckston - calculation of red list weir - uk public sec |
| role of accounting in biodiversity | russel - limitations of current research (focus on economic enties) tregidga - viewing accounting as a technology of government atkins - extinction accounting as a framework for good cuckston - two approaches (corporate and accountings role in bl) |
| alternative accounting frameworks | russel - ecologically informed reporting tregidga - quantification for biodiversity offsetting atkins - extinction accounting cuckston - role of accounting to push conservation efforts |
| key anthropocentric arguments | russel - humans centred cuckston - has to be shift away from centring humans - need to realise intrinsic value of biodiversity not economic cuckston - frameworks like extinction accounting can create hyprid of anthropocentric and deep ecology |
| arguments discussion impression management | a - fcf to philanthropic issues hard to disprove impression management motives c - corporate enagagment in biodiversity may involve impression management rather than genuine commitment c (2) - not all acc for bio futile for orgs who prioritise economy |
| key emancipatory arguments | atkins - extinction accounting based driven by fear not business case atkins - ext acc could act as emancipatory agent |
| jones, 2003 | - identifying and valuing 10 habitats (flora, fauna..) - natural inventory model created which increases practicality for organisations - potential benefits > costs - framework can be adapted by orgs |
| russel et al., 2017 | - focus on economic entities hampers realisation of sustainability and justice - ecological accounts seen as invalid by wider accounting community - anthropocentric rhetoric in nature discourse - promote alternative accounts |
| tregidga, 2013 (1) | - case study investigating biodiversity offsetting rationale in NZ - market based approach may be irrelevant - biodiversity key facet of environmental crisis - low public awareness and political priority |
| tregidga, 2013 (2) | - biodiversity offsetting describes voluntary and mandatory requirements - increased awareness in biodiversity increases expectations for companies to act sensibly |
| russel et al., 2017 | - focus on economic entities hampers realisation of sustainability and justice - ecological accounts seen as invalid by wider accounting community - anthropocentric rhetoric in nature discourse - promote alternative accounts |
| atkins et al., 2018 (1) | - ext acc in rhino context - interpreted as emancipatory - accountants altering visibility has opportunity to change at social and organisational level - ESG reporting too close to fin acc to provide meaningful change |
| atkins et al., 2018 (2) | - premature to say ESG reporting solely due to pressure -> however has failed to deliver holistic approach - orgs assign fcf to social issues -> arguments of impression management - ext acc could act as emancipatory agent |
| atkins et al., 2018 (3) | - ext acc driven by fear, bio acc driven by business case |
| cuckston, 2018 | - urgency to address planet-wide biodiversity loss - need to shift focus form human to nature - application of existing frameworks to large orgs is questionable |
| describe cuckston, 2018's views on theoretical rigour of biodiversity accounting | - main issue is lack of theoretical rigour (decreases legitimacy) -> need to move from descriptive to explantory - more rigour could lead to biodiversity research becoming force for conservation |