Search results

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate whether or not lenders are environmentally liable by the simple act of lending money. The concept of “lender liability” is one of the more critical issues which seems to be ready to upset the “apple cart” of environmental calm, which the English law enjoyed until recently. Why should banks be held liable for pollution and clean-up costs? The banks’ responsibility should end when it has granted the loan to the borrower to carry out its commercial activities. It is argued that a lender who becomes involved in the borrower’s financial management is unlikely to incur a clean-up liability, but it will become liable to clean it up if it forecloses or takes possession of the land. Can the bank be regarded as the “owner” of the land? In some English statutes, there is no definition of the word “owner”. Does a mortgagee in possession entitle him to ownership of the property to hold him responsible for liabilities for environmental harm?

The development of domestic environmental liability and the Trans-Atlantic position with the USA will be examined. The “owner” concept will also be critically reviewed to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property. The dilemma of the English courts with regards to lender issues and lender self-protection will also be examined. This will all be analysed and criticised in this paper.

This paper aims to demonstrate whether or not lenders are environmentally liable by the simple act of lending money. It will also discuss “owner” concept to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property.

In this paper, the “owner” concept will be critically reviewed to see whether banks and mortgagees can be regarded as owners on possession of the property. The dilemma of the English courts with regards to lender issues and lender self-protection will also be critically analysed and compared with different legal systems.

Suggests which valuation approaches should be adopted for appraising properties that are already treated or intended for development. Considers questions of ill‐informed market evidence, continuing liabilities, comparison of long‐term and short‐term advantages, grants and planning gain. Concludes that many in the property business will have to become more conversant with the mysteries of contamination.

The purpose of this paper is to encourage accounting regulators to address diversity in practice in the reporting of environmental liabilities. When Canada changed to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in 2011, Canadian regulators asked the IFRS Interpretations Committee to interpret whether the discount rate to value environmental liabilities should be a risk-free discount rate. Old Canadian GAAP, and current US GAAP, allow for a higher discount rate, resulting in commensurately lower liabilities. International regulators refused to address this issue expecting no diversity in practice in Canada.

The focus is on a sample of Canadian oil and gas and mining firms. These domestic industries play a major role internationally and have significant environmental liabilities. The method is empirical archival, tracking firm characteristics and discount rate choice on transition to IFRS.

There is significant diversity in practice. About one-third of the sample firms choose a higher discount rate, avoiding a major increase in environmental liabilities on transition to IFRS. The evidence suggests that these firms have relatively larger environmental liabilities and that the discount rate decision is a strategic choice.

The sample is based on one country and may only be reflecting local anomalies that have no broader implications.

Diversity in practice in accounting for environmental liabilities is not acceptable. Accounting regulators should act to create consistent and comparable reporting practice.

Firms and managers facing larger environmental liabilities can choose to minimize environmental liabilities under IFRS, while it is the general public and society at large that bear the ultimate risk.

The paper pushes forward the debate on whether recognized environmental liabilities should reflect the interests of equity investors, or if other investors and stakeholders should be taken into account.

Outlines environmental opportunities for the finance sector, which include: environmental investment funds; investment in new environmental technologies and services; and brokering tradeable environmental rights. The rapidly‐growing market in environmental technology and services is currently around $0.5 trillion globally, largely in waste management, and 60 per cent in Europe and North America. Argues that brokerage opportunities are currently limited but could expand quickly to trillion‐dollar totals if international climatechange and biodiversity agreements come into effect. Warns that environmental risks for the finance sector derive largely from the transfer of clean‐up liabilities to lenders and insurers, although this varies greatly between nations. Clean‐up costs may reach $2 billion for a single site.

From a management viewpoint, identifies the quantitative information relative to environmental activities the management should have. Describes the types of auditing that should be conducted to protect the organization. Cost and liabilities must be established on an objective and realistic basis. Auditing by external and internal auditors must be the safety valve – the control that helps to ensure that there will be a minimum exposure to serious problems and then, when the problems occur, that the requirements of the government agencies are met.

To present a support system which will be useful to mediators of brownfield redevelopment negotiations between government and industry representatives.

The support system optimizes a weighted utility function of the parties involved in the negotiation. It provides not only the optimal solution but also some sensitivity reports which the mediator can use to lead the negotiations in the most effective direction.

The spreadsheet technology is sufficient to solve the optimization problem and produce sensitivity reports in real time. Consequently, a mediator equipped with a laptop computer can lead the negotiations efficiently.

It is possible to achieve Pareto optimal contingent contracts among the stakeholders of brownfield redevelopment projects.

Many negotiations that were stalled in the past could be completed successfully using the support system presented here. New negotiations might be completed more efficiently than without the system.

This is the first paper to offer detailed guidance to mediators of brownfield redevelopment projects.

Certified public accountants (CPAs) must advise their clients about potential environmental problems and solutions. Only by doing this can the long‐term survival and profitability of many clients be ensured. Reports on a survey of 940 CPA firms which identified their inconsistent attitudes to timing of disclosure, measurement issues and income statement presentation. Inconsistent practices are mainly owing to lack of authoritative support in the area. Recommends future actions and suggests the CPA should be aware of three critical issues that can adversely affect clients′ operations: valuation of the business, acquisition and divestiture and access to capital. Discusses the CPA′s role as external adviser.

This paper is concerned with financial statement disclosure of environmental liabilities by companies that are coming to the US securities market for the first time in an initial public offering (IPO). This specific disclosure type has not been previously reported on in the accounting literature. Compares 26 IPO firms identified as potentially responsible parties (PRPs) in Superfund sites with a closely matched (on the attributes of industry classification and asset size) group of publicly held PRPs. The objective is to observe whether there is a differentially higher level of environmental disclosure by the IPO group during the year of heightened securities market scrutiny as the IPO occurs. Data are collected through content analysis of annual reports and SEC Form 10‐Ks. The results from this study show that no different level of environmental disclosure was identified in the matched‐pair sample. The more intense inspection, the higher stakes in an IPO situation and the enhanced due diligence procedures are of no apparent consequence in simulating a greater amount or quality of environmental disclosure. Strict disclosure mandates and expected public scrutiny do not appear to ensure the anticipated level of accounting statement disclosure concerning environmental liabilities.

This paper aims to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of the four most likely urban spaces for mixed use development – brownfields (contaminated lands); greenfields (open, undeveloped areas); greyfields (closed or dying shopping centers and empty parking lots); and redfields (underperforming, foreclosed commercial real estate).

Literature about and studies of mixed use development projects in America and Britain were reviewed, and so too were specific examples of the four candidate urban spaces. The authors then analyzed which spaces succeeded as mixite and which failed.

Brownfields are often not successfully transformed into usable mixite; nor are greenfields. The cost and regulatory complication of removing pollution from brownfields is too often prohibitive, and greenfields are too far away from urban core areas. By contrast, greyfields and redfields appear to be far more suitable spaces for mixed use development projects.

Most government policies urging redevelopment projects in America and Great Britain prefer brownfields as the space deemed most suitable for mixite. Contrary to this view, it appears that unpolluted spaces, such as redfields and greyfields, that do not need extensive environmental remediation, are typically better candidates for mixite.

In the United States, nearly 50,000 pounds of waste per person is produced annually, for a total of approximately 6 billion tons of waste, one ton for each person living on the planet Earth. But not all wastes are created equal. U.S. businesses generate some 100 pounds of toxic and hazardous waste per day for every American resident. The impacts of municipal solid waste combine with the legacy of toxins released through pre-production, industrial production, transportation, releases and spills, direct use, byproduct wastes, and end use wastes.