Search results

The purpose of this paper is to re-kindle debate about finding a conceptual and pragmatic basis for accounting and accountability researchers and to incorporate biodiversity management into the internal practices, routines and communication of organizations.

A qualitative interplay of theories, particularly structuration theory, applied to an interdisciplinary, communitarian and eco-centric perspective will be used to demonstrate the need for change: for researchers and practitioners to interact with other disciplines and adapt their professional, institutional and governance practices to incorporate biodiversity management and reporting within organizational structures.

Collective community action can be undertaken by aligning physical biodiversity and its setting with the interrelationship between external information structures, accountability and internal information structures, agent behaviour and the reporting of outcomes. This should assist in reducing the loss of species and richness triggered by unsound economic decision-making.

This is perhaps one of the few accounting studies which discuss theoretical frameworks for the integration of accounting/accountability systems and biological diversity information through a conceptual rethinking.

This should assist in reducing the loss of species and richness triggered by unsound economic decision-making.

This paper re-opens the debate regarding the need for an alternative conceptual approach through which biodiversity management can be incorporated into the complexities of business interactions, and the social and natural systems, by using management accounting as a primary vehicle. This is perhaps one of the few accounting studies which discuss theoretical frameworks for the integration of accounting/accountability systems and biological diversity information through a conceptual rethinking.

The paper aims to carry out a comprehensive literature mapping to synthesise and descriptively analyse the research trends of biodiversity accounting, providing implications for managers and policymakers, whilst also outlining a future agenda for scholars.

A bibliometric analysis is carried out by adopting the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses protocol for searching and selecting the scientific contributions to be analysed. Citation analysis is used to map a current research front and a bibliographic coupling is conducted to detect the connection networks in current literature.

Biodiversity accounting is articulated in five thematic clusters (sub-areas), such as “Natural resource management”, “Biodiversity economic evaluation”, “Natural capital accounting”, “Biodiversity accountability” and “Biodiversity disclosure and reporting”. Critical insights emerge from the content analysis of these sub-areas.

The analysis of the thematic evolution of the biodiversity accounting literature provides useful insights to inform both practice and research and infer implications for managers, policymakers and scholars by outlining three main areas of intervention, i.e. adjusting evaluation tools, integrating ecological knowledge and establishing corporate social legitimacy.

Currently, the level of biodiversity reporting is pitifully low. Therefore, organisations should properly manage biodiversity by integrating diverse and sometimes competing forms of knowledge for the stable and resilient flow of ecosystem services for future generations.

This paper not only updates and enriches the current state of the art but also identifies five thematic areas of the biodiversity accounting literature for theoretical and practical considerations.

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.

This chapter compares the current biodiversity practices of higher education institutions (HEIs) and their learning effects of the Global North and South. It particularly explores the HEIs’ strategies targeting biodiversity and ecosystem services preservation. In order to answer the research question, a qualitative content analysis of published sustainability reports of the systematically selected HEIs was performed. The Times Higher Education (THE) was used to select HEIs. The results show that biodiversity reporting and management is still in its early stages in HEIs from both the Global North and South and could benefit from further research and suggestions for improvement. One implication for the HEIs is that they could increase public awareness and knowledge of biodiversity through the integration of this topic into their curricula, more research projects on biodiversity, and operations on and off campus.

The purpose of this paper is to establish whether local authorities in New Zealand report biodiversity-related information and to examine the vehicles through which it is communicated.

This paper uses a keyword search to identify biodiversity reporting across a wide range of data sources, including local authority websites, formal accountability documents, environmental reports, environment and biodiversity management strategies, plans and policies.

Biodiversity-related information was contained in range of documents. Reporting ranged from no mention of the term in existing statutory accountability documents (Annual Plans, Annual Reports, Long-Term Plans [LTPs] and District Plans/Regional Policy Statements), through to a comprehensive stand-alone biodiversity Annual Report and stand-alone biodiversity strategies. Regional and unitary authorities were more likely than territorial authorities to prepare and report biodiversity-related information to stakeholders. There is currently no consistent framework or method to guide local authorities in the presentation of biodiversity-related information. The lack of consistent, comparable information hinders the ability of stakeholders to assess local authority performance in the sustainable management of biodiversity in their district or region.

While this study does not consider quality of reporting, or reporting trends over time, it provides a picture of the “current state of play”. This provides a starting point from which further research into the preparation and reporting of biodiversity information by local authorities can be conducted.

This paper represents the first of its kind within a New Zealand context. It provides an initial insight into whether local authorities prepare and report biodiversity-related information and where this information is presented.

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 reveal the impression which is delivered in the biodiversity report of local governments in South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia. It is crucial since the region has biodiversity that seems to get no specific attention in preserving its sustainability.

Discourse analysis was used as a method to reveal fact and developing discourse. Analysis method to be developed was Eder cognitive discourse analysis, which was conducted by observing the narration in the biodiversity report.

The findings of this study indicate that the informant's impression of the biodiversity report was made to attract investors by showing information related to local natural resources, thus allowing investors to exploit nature as needed. Nature and humans in the view of policymakers cannot be separated.

The implication of this research for further research is to focus more on the neutralization motives of the biodiversity reports preparers and the implications of community participation to save the environment.

This study shows practice and policy of accounting in the organizational biodiversity as written in its report. Discourse and impression which are stated to the stakeholders need to be changed to show the seriousness of the region in biodiversity conservation.

Many types of research studies have been conducted related to biodiversity accounting so far, but this paper views it from a different aspect. This paper discusses the intention and purpose of the report to show its spirit.

The purpose of this paper is to explain how proponents of biodiversity offsetting have sought to produce an ecologically defensible mechanism for reconciling economic development and biodiversity conservation.

The paper analyses a case study biodiversity offsetting mechanism in New South Wales, Australia. Michel Callon’s framing and overflowing metaphor is used to explain how accounting devices are brought into the mechanism, to (re)frame a space of calculability and address anxieties expressed by conservationists about calculations of net loss/gain of biodiversity.

The analysis shows that the offsetting mechanism embeds a form of accounting for biodiversity that runs counter to the prevailing dominant anthropocentric approach. Rather than accounting for the biodiversity of a site in terms of the economic benefits it provides to humans, the mechanism accounts for biodiversity in terms of its ecological value. This analysis, therefore, reveals a form of accounting for biodiversity that uses numbers to provide valuations of biodiversity, but these numbers are ecological numbers, not economic numbers. So this is a calculative, and also ecocentric, approach to accounting for, and valuing, biodiversity.

This paper contributes to the extant literature on accounting for biodiversity by revealing a novel conceptualisation of the reconciliation of economic development and biodiversity conservation, producing an ecologically defensible form of sustainable development. The paper also makes a methodological contribution by showing how Callon’s framing and overflowing metaphor can be used to enable the kind of interdisciplinary engagement needed for researchers to address sustainable development challenges.

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.