Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the current nature and content of biodiversity reporting practices adopted by English local councils. By adopting a multi-theoretical framework that relies on economic and social theories such as agency, stakeholder, legitimacy and institutional theories, this study also aims to investigate the factors that explain the extent of biodiversity disclosure provided by local councils.

This study uses a self-constructed disclosure index to analyse the biodiversity-related information published in the official websites of 351 English local councils. A multivariate analysis was conducted to analyse the association between local councils’ characteristics and biodiversity disclosure.

This study shows that the information disclosed on local biodiversity is limited and does not allow the interested stakeholders to get a comprehensive picture of the current status of local biodiversity. It also provides evidence that the level of biodiversity disclosure is significantly associated with the level of local council’s population, the presence of councillors from environmentally oriented parties and environmental non-governmental organisations operating in the local council area, poor biodiversity management practices and local councils’ visibility.

This study is one of the few accounting studies that provides a comprehensive analysis of biodiversity disclosure by analysing its nature and content and investigating the factors associated with such disclosure. It extends agency, stakeholder, institutional and legitimacy theories, by showing that local councils use voluntary disclosures to satisfy the informational needs of the main stakeholders and to assure that their strategies and practices conform to the values and expectations of the community they represent.

This study aims to explore the biodiversity reporting by the largest dairy company in China (the Yili Group). The authors use signalling theory, legitimacy theory, institutional theory and stakeholder theory to understand the Yili Group’s motivations to report biodiversity disclosures.

This study uses content analysis, guided by a biodiversity disclosure index, to explore and investigate the disclosure themes and tone for the stand-alone Yili Group biodiversity reports for the period 2017–2019. The content analysis is supplemented by a selection of interviews used to obtain additional insights into the Yili Group’s biodiversity reporting.

A gradual improvement is noted in the Yili Group’s biodiversity reporting over time, while the need for improvement remains as the Yili Group matures in its reporting. The company tends to report symbolic disclosures rather than substantive ones and is motivated more by external pressures and/or incentives than by morality and/or stakeholder accountability: this pushes the company towards more dominant symbolic biodiversity disclosure practices.

Findings are particularly relevant to the management of Chinese companies planning to publish biodiversity reports or enhance biodiversity disclosure practices as they draw attention to specific aspects of biodiversity reporting which require improvement. Improvements in biodiversity reporting provide a signal that such reporting is maturing and that organizations are recognizing the need for managing their biodiversity impact.

Given that the Yili Group is a pioneer among Chinese firms in publishing biodiversity reports, this paper suggests other companies’ imitation of the Yili Group and helps promote the diffusion of biodiversity reporting in China. In addition, this paper provides a basis for a call for Chinese companies to strengthen their awareness and accountability regarding biodiversity and the conservation thereof.

This study is among the first to explore biodiversity reporting and disclosure in a China-based organization. While the study deals with one company, the findings are broadly applicable for other organizations seeking to undertake biodiversity accounting and reporting. Considering that biodiversity accounting is a research area which is still under-investigated, this paper aims to respond to the call of Jones and Solomon (2013) for pushing the boundaries in biodiversity accounting.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the biodiversity and threatened species reporting of the top 150 Fortune Global companies. The paper has two main objectives: to explore the extent to which the top 150 Fortune Global companies disclose information about their biodiversity and species conservation practices, and to explore the effects of biodiversity partners and industry on companies’ biodiversity and threatened species reporting.

The study’s sample is the top 150 Fortune Global companies. Each company’s fiscal year ending 2014 annual report, its 2014 sustainability report, and its company website were content analyzed for evidence of biodiversity and threatened species reporting. This content analysis is supplemented by a detailed analysis that focusses on the sample’s top five reporters, including a phone interview with a senior sustainability manager working at one of these companies. Finally, a regression analysis was conducted to examine the associations between companies’ biodiversity and threatened species reporting and the presence/absence of biodiversity partners and a company’s industry F&C Asset Management industry category.

The reporting on biodiversity and threatened species by the top 150 Fortune Global companies is quite limited. Few companies (less than 15) are providing any substantial reporting. It was further observed that even among the high scoring companies there is a lack of consistent reporting across all index items. A subsequent empirical examination of these companies’ disclosures on biodiversity and threatened species showed a statistically positive association between the amount of reporting and companies’ holding of biodiversity partnerships. It was also observed that firms categorized as red- and green-zone companies made more disclosures on biodiversity and threatened species than amber-zone companies.

This is the first study to systematically analyze corporate disclosures related to threatened species and habitats. While some prior studies have included the concept of biodiversity when analyzing organizations’ environmental disclosures, they have done so by examining it as one general category out of many further categories for investigating organizations’ environmental reporting. In the present study, the focus is on the specific contents of biodiversity disclosures. As such, this study has the twin research objectives of seeking to illuminate the current state of biodiversity and threatened species reporting by the world’s largest multinationals and provide an appreciation for how certain organizational and industry variables serve to influence these reporting practices. These multiple insights offer companies, and potentially regulators, understanding about how to include (or extend) disclosures on biodiversity loss and species under threat of extinction.

The purpose of this article is to provide an account of the quantity, location and intentions behind companies' biodiversity disclosure.

This study applies a mixed methods approach to the examination of the quantity and location of biodiversity disclosure. The research focuses on a study of corporate websites and corporate reports over a five‐year period. Interviews with company representatives were also conducted regarding company intentions behind biodiversity disclosure.

The findings of this study show that few of the companies studied have a record of providing continuous biodiversity information. Those companies that provide the most biodiversity information are in the lower‐risk sector. The interview respondents identify social environmental reporting frameworks as catalysts for biodiversity disclosure. A reason for this low level of biodiversity disclosure may be the infrequency of interaction with pressure groups. However, the respondents also state, as increasingly their companies have paid more attention to sustainability reporting in recent years, more detailed biodiversity disclosure has resulted.

The research in this study, which is explorative and descriptive, is limited to a study of the quantity and location of biodiversity disclosure by 29 companies listed on the OMXS30 and the preparers' reasons for such disclosure.

This is an original study that attempts to go beyond mere reporting of biodiversity disclosure by examining the motivations for such disclosure using interviews with company representatives.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the development of a biodiversity reporting and evaluation framework. The application of the framework to an exemplar organisation identifies biodiversity-related annual report disclosures and analyses changes in the nature and levels of these over time. Finally, the paper aims to establish whether the disclosures made by the exemplar are consistent with a deep ecological perspective, as exemplified by New Zealand conservation legislation.

Viewing the framework developed by the paper through a deep ecological lens, the study involves a detailed content analysis of the biodiversity disclosures contained within the annual reports of a conservation organisation over a 23-year period. Using the framework developed in this paper, the biodiversity-related text units were identified and allocated to one of three major categories, 13 subcategories, and then into deep, intermediate and shallow ecology.

Biodiversity disclosures enable stakeholders to determine the goals, assess their implementation, and evaluate the performance of an organisation. Applying the framework to the exemplar revealed the majority of annual report disclosures focused on presenting performance/implementation information. The study also found that the majority of disclosures reflect a deep ecological approach. A deep/shallow ecological tension was apparent in a number of disclosures, especially those relating to the exploitation of the conservation estate.

This paper is the first to develop a framework that can be used as both a biodiversity reporting assessment tool and a reporting guide. The framework will be particularly useful for those studying reporting by conservation departments and stakeholders of organisations whose operations impact biodiversity.

This paper aims to explore the biodiversity reporting by a state-owned entity responsible for conserving and protecting biodiversity assets in South Africa, the South African National Parks (SANParks) (SOC) Limited.

This study uses content analysis to explore and investigate the disclosure themes in the SANParks reports for the period 2013–2017. The frequency of substantive disclosures is also evaluated over a five-year period. The data are presented graphically in frequency charts and supported by descriptive statistics and univariate correlations for non-normal data. This provides insights into the amount of information being disclosed and the interconnections among biodiversity reporting themes.

SANParks has increased its reporting on biodiversity over time. Disclosures are interconnected and deal with a range of issues, including species at risk of extinction, operational considerations, risk management practices and how SANParks evaluates its environmental performance. The information is detailed and included in different parts of the organisation’s annual reports suggesting a genuine commitment to protecting biodiversity. There are areas for improvement but SANParks frames biodiversity as a central part of its strategy, operations and assurance processes something which would not occur if the disclosures were only about managing impressions.

The study is among the first to explore biodiversity disclosure themes in a state-owned entity in Africa, responsible for the conservation. While the study deals with a specific case entity, the findings are broadly applicable for other organisations keen on constructing a biodiversity account.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the biodiversity reporting practices and trends of the top 50 Australian mining companies before and after the United Nations (UN) declared the period 2011-2020 as the “Decade on Biodiversity”.

Using content analysis and interviews, this study compares the extent and type of biodiversity disclosures made by the Australian Stock Exchange’s top 50 metals and mining companies both before and after the UN’s “Decade on Biodiversity” declaration in 2010.

A significant increase in the amount of biodiversity reporting is observed between the 2010 fiscal year preceding the UN’s declaration and the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years following the declaration. The findings reveal, however, that the extent of biodiversity reporting is quite variable, with some companies showing substantial increases in their biodiversity reporting and others showing modest or no increases. In particular, the larger companies in the sample showed a statistically significant increase in their disclosures on biodiversity in 2013 compared with 2010, while the increase in biodiversity disclosures by smaller companies was not significant. While interviewees spoke about their companies being more open and transparent, the biodiversity information that is being reported would not enable external parties to assess the company’s biodiversity performance.

To minimise an organisation’s use of biodiversity reporting as an impression management tool, it is suggested that biodiversity reporting should be more impact based and organisations should provide a report of their activities and their direct and tangible impacts on short-term and long-term biodiversity in and around their operating sites. A possible limitation of the present study pertains to its focus on companies’ voluntary disclosures made in their annual reports and sustainability reports, as opposed to other possible formal or even informal disclosure mediums.

Australia is one of 17 mega-diverse wildlife countries in the world. Finding ways to support the country’s biodiversity framework and strategy are crucial to this continued status. Due to the mining industry’s significant impact on Australia’s biodiversity, a strong need exists for biodiversity reporting by this industry. Furthermore, this reporting should be provided on a site-by-site basis. At present, the reporting aggregation typically conducted by mining companies produces obscure information that is neither useful for stakeholders who are impacted by the mining companies’ activities nor for policymakers who are vested with responsibility for protecting and sustaining the world’s biodiversity.

This study examines the biodiversity reporting and discourse practices of mining companies in Australia and develops a 50-item biodiversity reporting index to measure the biodiversity reporting practices.

This paper aims to respond to recent calls by Jones (2014) and Jones and Solomon (Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2013) for more studies on biodiversity accounting and reporting. In particular, this paper explores biodiversity reporting of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), an Australian public sector enterprise.

The paper uses content analysis of MDBA’s published annual reports over the period of 15 years (1998-2012). Archival data (from different government departments) are also used to prepare natural inventory model.

The paper finds that although specific species, such as flora and fauna, and habitats-related disclosures have increased over the time, such information still allows only a partial construction of an inventory of natural assets, using Jones’ (1996, 2003) model. However, unlike prior studies that find lack of data availability to be the main impediment for operationalising biodiversity accounting, the abundance of biodiversity data in Australia makes it comparatively easier to produce such a statement.

Informed by the environmental stewardship framework, the results of this paper suggest that the disclosures made by MDBA are constrained potentially due to its use of traditional accounting mechanisms of reporting that only allow tradable items to be reported to stakeholders. An alternative reporting format would be more relevant to stakeholder groups who are more interested in information regarding quality and availability of water, and loss of biodiversity in the basin area rather than the financial performance of the MDBA.

Although there are a growing number of studies exploring biodiversity reporting in Australia, this paper is one of the earlier attempts to operationalise biodiversity (particularly habitats, flora and fauna) within the context of an Australian public sector enterprise.

The purpose of this study is to illuminate the disclosure of biodiversity material contained in the reported information of 151 local government authorities (LGAs) in New South Wales, Australia. The introduction of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (an international treaty to sustain the rich diversity of life on earth) has made the issue of fauna management and monitoring, and the associated requirement for cost-effective information, much more important. As local communities are best placed to make decisions about the protection of their local environments, the content in external reports and other disclosures allows stakeholders to gauge how accountable LGAs are regarding the conservation of biodiversity within their geographical jurisdiction.

Content analysis was used to analyze the disclosures of these LGAs.

The results reveal marked differences in the reporting of biodiversity issues. In fact, LGAs in the state of New South Wales (Australia) have been, at best, lukewarm in their disclosure of strategic information relating to biodiversity, particularly in their strategic goals and plans.

This paper contributes to the academic literature on biodiversity reporting by investigating existing reporting practices and providing evidence that a universally adopted framework for biodiversity reporting and reporting of local native fauna is required. In particular, the impacts of these practices need to be properly understood for LGAs to provide accountability to their stakeholders.

This study aims to examine biodiversity reporting by South African food producers and retailers. It not only draws attention to the disconnect between reporting on an important environmental issue and the sense of commitment to environmental responsibility, but also shows that over time, organisations are becoming more proactive about biodiversity reporting.

The research uses a content analysis of sustainability and integrated reports and organised hypocrisy as a theoretical framework for analysing biodiversity-related disclosures.

Consistent with an organised hypocrisy framework, the research finds that the several companies rely on corporate reporting to emphasise actions and internal management strategies that are already producing favourable results. In contrast, mission statements, firm policy commitments and forward-looking analysis are avoided. There is, however, evidence to suggest that the gaps between corporate reporting and action may be giving companies the time to reform their practices, align biodiversity disclosures with genuine corporate action and move towards truly integrated business models.

Poor biodiversity reporting raises questions about the extent to which companies are managing serious environmental issues that can have a direct impact on their business models. Improvements in biodiversity reporting also suggest that corporate reporting is maturing and that some organisations are beginning to understand the need for managing their biodiversity impact.

The paper offers empirical evidence on how the disconnect between organisational rhetoric and action is used to manage stakeholder expectations and negate the need for environmental reforms. In this manner, organised hypocrisy is framed as a specific legitimisation strategy. The research also shows that organised hypocrisy is not absolute; despite the opportunity to engage in organised hypocrisy, some companies are taking a more proactive approach to biodiversity reporting. As a result, it may be appropriate to see organised hypocrisy as part of a transition to higher quality integrated or sustainability reporting.