ABERDEEN PAPERS IN ACCOUNTANCY, FINANCE &

MANAGEMENT

WORKING PAPER 00-17

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A REVIEW OF THE

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, BUSINESS AND
ACCOUNTING LITERATURE

JAN BEBBINGTON

© 2000, Author and the University of Aberdeen

This w ork is copyright material and no part of it may be reproduced or used without the
express permission of the authors, who can be contacted as overleaf. The authors welcome
feedback and comment.

This paper is delivered in electronic format and single print copies may be made for personal
and research use, without necessity of separate authorisation. Further print copies may be
ordered from the Department of Accountancy & Finance (address as below), at a price of
£5.00 per copy, payment by sterling cheque, with order.

Series Editor: Professor Roger Buckland, Department of Accountancy & Finance, University
of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3QY, Scotland. Email: r.buckland@abdn.ac.uk

ISSN 0962-4627

1
 Sustainable development: a review of the international development,
business and accounting literature1

Jan Bebbington

Professor of Accountancy, Department of Accountancy and Finance,

University of Aberdeen, Edward Wright Building, Dunbar Street, Aberdeen,
AB24 3QY, Scotland. J.bebbington@abdn.ac.uk.

Abstract

This paper has been written in response to the perception that ‘sustainable
development’ and its derivatives are being used in, amongst others, the
accounting literature in a way which equates sustainable development with
‘good environmental management’. Further, the paper assumes that such
usage of sustainable development arises, at least in part, from a lack of
awareness of the origins of the concept. Thus the paper seeks to sketch the
origins of debates about sustainable development and to briefly outline how
the concept has been used in the business literature and in the accounting
literature. As this task progresses it becomes evident that the meaning of
sustainable development is not at all fixed. Rather, sustainable development
has been constructed in various discourses to mean a variety of, often
mutually exclusive, outcomes. The main argument of this paper, therefore, is
that one should be careful about using sustainable development to mean
‘good environmental management’. Rather, from a review of the literature it
becomes clear that sustainable development is a concept which is designed
to address the question: what kind of economic system would lead to
everyone’s needs being met in an ecologically sustainable and socially just
manner? While ‘good environmental management’ is therefore part of the
sustainable development agenda it is not a central part of the debate.

1
This paper draws materially from Bebbington (1999). In addition, the ground covered in this
paper is also considered in Bebbington (2000), but this paper significantly develops the
arguments contained in that paper. Further, a preliminary discussion of some of the
international development ligature can also be found in Bebbington et al., (in review).

2
1.0 Introduction

As we enter the twenty first century it is increasingly impossible (at least in the

‘developed’ world)2 to avoid the concept of sustainable development and its

various derivatives (for example, sustainability, sustainable business,

sustainable growth, ecological sustainability, social sustainability, the Dow

Jones sustainability index to name but a few). What is less clear, however, is

what these various phrases mean, how they relate to each other (if at all) and

to what extent they accord with an accepted understanding of sustainable

development (if there is such a thing). This would be cause for some, but not

great, concern if the context within which sustainable development has gained

currency were not so serious. Sustainable development is used to motivate

various political, legal and economic initiatives which seek to resolve the

social, environmental and economic problematique3 which as occupants of

our planet we currently face. The stakes are thus, potentially, very high.

At the same time, it is clear that the phrase sustainable development has

been used to mean different things to different people in different contexts

(see, for example, Lele, 1991). There is, as a result, a need to be quite clear

about what the concept may or may not entail in order to better understand

2
While labels such as ‘developed’, ‘developing’, ‘first’ and ‘third’ world are on the one hand
abhorrent they are well enough understood so as to be used to describe a certain set of
countries with similar levels of economic development and social organisation. ‘Developed’ or
the ‘first’ world is used primarily to describe the United States, Canada, Western Europe,
Scandinavia, New Zealand, Australia and Japan. The labels ‘developing’ or ‘third’ world
encompass a broad array of countries in many parts of the global (but who are situated
mainly in Africa, South America and the Asian sub-continent) which in many ways have very
little in common with each other. What they do have in common is that they do not share the
economic and social characteristics of the ‘developed’ world.
3
The Club of Rome referred to the environment and development crisis as a "global
problematique" which refers to "the complex and global problems and the dynamic
interactions which exist between them: not only are the problems linked in complex ways, but
they change even as their contexts are changing" (Reid, 1995).

3
the rhetoric around the term. This essay seeks to move towards doing just

that. In particular, in order to place sustainable development in its social and

historical context, this paper will outline the evolution of the term within the

international development literature - which is the place from which

sustainable development sprung into the mainstream policy agenda. In

addition, given that sustainable development discourse is entering the realm

of accounting research this essay will trace how the term has come to be

used within accounting, using the business and sustainable development

literature as a stepping stone between the aforementioned two sets of

literature. As a result, a section of this paper will be dedicated to the

international development literature, envisioning a sustainable corporation and

the accounting and sustainable development literature. Finally, some

concluding comments will be made concerning the interlinkages between

these literatures and the implications which arise for the study of sustainable

development from the evolution of the concept.

2.0 The international development debate

The publication of the Brundtland Report (United Nations World Conference

on Environment and Development - hereafter UNWCED - and also known as

the Brundtland Report, 1987) is often sighted as the place where sustainable

development entered the policy arena. While this may well the case, the

Brundtland Report itself was the culmination of a much longer process of

examining human-environment interactions. Lele (1991, p609), for example,

notes that the sustainability debate has its origins in a much older debate

concerning renewable resources such as forestry and fisheries (see also

4
Sachs, 1992). In a similar manner, McCormick (1986, at p178) notes that the

idea of sustainability existed in the conservation philosophy of the Theodore

Roosevelt administration in the United Sates (see also O'Riordan, 1988,

p32/33 and Sandbach, 1978, p502) and that the 1949 United Nations

Scientific Conference on the Conservation and Utilization of Resources held

at Lake Success, New York, saw an urgent need for sustainable

development. These much older, mainly conservation based, concerns, were

given fresh impetus since the 1970s as a result of the disparity which

emerged in the economic achievements (and from that individual’s living

standards) in the ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ world.

Pirages, for example, suggests that by 1990 "[f]aith in the near inevitability of

significant industrial economic growth [had] … been badly shaken" (p2) and

that;

"[t]he quarter-century of steady growth and relative economic stability

that followed the Second World War has given way to two decades of

economic, social and political challenges within a rapidly changing

international political economy. This period has been punctuated by

two cycles of energy crisis and related economic instability, an

explosion in food prices brought on by perceptions of scarcity, a run-up

in basic commodity prices followed by a price collapse, two major

periods of economic recession, an international debt crisis and a stock

market crash that reverberated around the world" (Pirages, 1990, p1).

5
At the same time, the underlying assumption that economic growth in the

‘developed’ countries would stimulate growth and prosperity in the

‘developing’ world appeared to be insupportable. In particular, Pirages (1990)

suggests that it is not at all clear that "a slowly rising tide [of economic growth]

will lift all ships. In fact, there is well-founded fear that the tide may be ebbing

and leaving them [‘developing’ countries] behind as litter on the beach" (p2/3).

Bartelmus (1994) also voices this concern and identifies the 1980's as the

"lost decade of development" (p1, see also Esteva, 1992, p16; Sachs, 1995,

p7) and notes that "[w]ith a few exceptions of developing countries in South-

east Asia, the rich countries got richer and the poor ones poorer" (p1). In a

similar manner Tolba and El-Kholy (1992) note that "[w]hile the world

economy has grown considerably ... much of the growth has been in countries

that were already consuming an inordinate share of the world's resources.

Many of the least developed countries had little economic growth and a

substantial fall in per capital production during the 1980s" (p816). These

concerns are reflected in the strategies of the United Nations as it sought to

ensure all peoples of the world had ‘acceptable’ living standards (see Figure

1). Against this background, the United Nations commissioned the Brundtland

Report, which would become a pivotal document in the importance attached

to the concept of sustainable development.

6
 Figure 1: International development strategies of the United Nations
“The International Development Strategy of the First United Nations Development Decade
of the 1960s was based on the belief that the fruits of accelerated economic growth would
trickle down to the low-income population strata. Since the trickle-down effect did not
materialize and thus failed to alleviate poverty in developing countries, the objective of
social justice was included in the objectives of the Second Development Decade. The
idea was to improve the distribution of the results of economic growth. The strategy for the
Third Development Decade of the 1980s proceeded from the recognition that the
objectives of the Second Decade were not met because of inequities and imbalances in
international economic relations. The strategy, therefore, included the goal of establishing
a `New International Economic Order'. However, the New Order also failed to materialize,
and the latest attempt at an International Development Strategy for the 1990s (the Fourth
United National Development Decade) has to admit that `the goals and objectives for the
Third United Nations Development Decade were for the most part unattained' (United
Nations, General Assembly resolution 45/199). The 1980s were characterized as a
decade of falling growth rate, declining living standards and deepening poverty with a
widening gap between rich and poor countries. Accordingly, the latest strategy for the
1990s calls again for the acceleration of economic growth. Such growth is also seen as a
prerequisite for ‘priority aspects of development' that include the eradication of poverty
and hunger, human resources development and the protection of the environment.”

Source: Bartelmus (1994, p3).

The Brundtland Report has its origins in a line of conferences and reports

which started with the Stockholm conference in 1972,4 the Cocoyoc

Declaration5 and the World Conservation Strategy.6 The elements which have

become embedded in the concept of sustainable development are clear in

these earlier works. Namely, at the core of human development concerns is

the nature of the system which ‘delivers’ economic, environmental and social

outcomes. Further, the primary goal of development is on the meeting basic

human needs. Furthermore, the focus is on both present and future

4
Where the concept of "ecodevelopment" was proposed to describe the process of
ecologically sound development with positive management of the environment for human
benefit (Holdgate et al., 1982, p7; McCormick, 1986, p182) with the objective of protecting the
environment “for future generations" (Holdgate et al., 1982, p10).
5
This was signed in 1974 and it sought to identify the economic and social factors inherent in
environmental degradation and emphasized that development "should not ... develop things,
but ... develop man" and noted that growth "that does not lead to the fulfilment [of basic
needs] - or, even worse, disrupts them - is a travesty of the idea of development" (Esteva,
1992, p14/15, see also Redclift, 1987, p32).
6
Which noted that "[h]uman beings, in their quest for economic development and enjoyment
of the riches of nature, must come to terms with the reality of resource limitation and the

7
generations and the equitable relationship between these two generations. All

of these elements can be found in the Brundtland Report definition of

sustainable development as “development which meets the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their

own needs” (UNWCED, 1987, p8, emphasis added).

While the Brundtland Report brought sustainable development to a wider

audience than previous UN reports and conferences had, the concept was

only firmly cemented into the international political arena by ‘Earth Summit’

(which was held in Rio de Janerio in 1992) and the agreements which

emerged from this conference.7 Rio was an international event of hitherto

unparalleled importance. Not only did it bring together more heads of state

than had ever been previously assembled (there were well over 100 heads of

state and 178 governments represented), its preparatory planning process

spanned five years with more than two years of formal negotiations taking

place (Grubb et al., 1993). Further, the agreements which emerged from it

have continued to this day to form the basis from which policy making, in the

name of sustainable development, draws.

carrying capacities of ecosystems, and must take account of the needs of future generations "
(International Union for the Conservation of Nature 1980, pI).
7
Rio provided the focus point for the (i) signing of a two legally binding conventions (the
Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity); (ii)
publication of a statement on Principles of Forest Management (this was originally sought to
be developed as a convention, however, insufficient agreement existed for this to happen);
(iii) publication of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (which contains 27
principles of environment and development which builds on the Stockholm Declaration of
1972) and (iv) publication of Agenda 21 (as an action plan for achieving sustainable
development in the twenty first century). Of these documents Agenda 21 provides the most
guidance on the implications of the pursuit of sustainable development.

8
Rio is alternatively billed a huge success or a spectacular failure depending

on what expectations were held for the event. Grubb et al., (1993), while

noting that the "lack of clear policy commitments" (p24) was troubling, point

out that the commitment to processes which could foster sustainable

development is important. They believe that with adequate follow up

processes it is possible that Rio could "spawn a steady accretion of effective

and meaningful commitments" (Grubb et al., 1993, p25) to sustainable

development.

Others are less optimistic. Hildyard (1995), for example, characterised the

Earth Summit as "finish[ing] where it began" (p22) and asserts it failed to

examine key structural features of unsustainability. In a damning analysis he

states:

"The net outcome was to minimise change to the status quo ...

Unwilling to question the desirability of economic growth, the market

economy or the development process itself, UNCED never had a

chance of addressing the real problems of ‘environment and

development'. Its Secretariat provided delegates with materials for a

convention on biodiversity, but not on free trade; on forests but not on

agribusiness; on climate but not on automobiles. Agenda 21 ... featured

clauses on ‘enabling the poor to achieve sustainable livelihoods' but

none on enabling the rich to do so; a section on women but none on

men. By such deliberate evasion of the central issues which economic

expansion poses for human societies, UNCED condemned itself to

9
 irrelevance even before the first preparatory meeting got under way"

(p22/23, see also Jordan 1993).

Further, if one accepts that meaning cannot be independently ascribed to a

concept without a consideration of the nature of the underlying assumptions

which individuals make when ascribing meaning then fundamental problems

with respect to the definition of sustainable development emerges. Norgaard

(1988, p611), for example, suggests that the epistemological roots of

unsustainable development can be traced to the linear vision of progress

which emerged from the Renaissance. Likewise, the kind of social and

environmental problems one sees and the kind of solutions which appear to

be feasible are rooted in implicitly held cultural assumptions. Redclift (1992)

suggests that:

"Where one chooses to set the parameters of this process [pursuit of

sustainability] depends on the range of social concerns that are

identified ... [t]he essential point is that environmental problems ... are

the outcome of a series of choices ... [t]he epicentre of these choices is

the developed world, and most of these choices are so culturally

grounded that few people in the North recognize them as choices at all:

they are routinely depicted as ‘needs' rather than ‘wants'. In exploring

the human dimensions of global environmental change we might

usefully explore these social commitments" (p40).

This, at least implicit, focus on ‘first’ world aspirations was also noted by

Grubb et al., (1993) who suggest that (at the Rio conference) "the global

10
issues which were of greatest concern to the North received a high profile

relative to issues such as water quality, which are far more pressing in terms

of the quality of life and indeed survival in developing countries" (p27).8

In addition, there has been considerable disquiet about the concept of

sustainable development itself. Commentators have been at pains to

emphasise that sustainability is "more than a new word for the environment"

(Goodman and Redclift, 1991, p2). Rather, the pursuit of sustainability

involves an examination of both environment and development9 issues and

the interplay between these concepts. It is the relationship between

environment and development which has given rise to the call for sustainable

development. It has, however, been suggested that ideas about environment

and development have, at least in the past, drawn from opposing intellectual

traditions. Redclift (1987, p199) characterises environmental as being

concerned with the "limits which nature presents to human beings" while

development is concerned with the "potential for human material development

8
Indeed, Tolba and El-Kholy (1992) argue, "[t]oo much `environmental' literature is written
from the narrow perspective of a few thousand authors from the developed countries. They
tend to emphasize problems such as pollution, deforestation and the loss of biological
diversity. But this is only one perspective - and for several billion people it is a distorted one.
Poor people have a perspective of the environment dominated by insufficient food and water,
inadequate shelter and fuel wood, no safe waste disposal, and a lack of health care,
education and employment" (p661).
9
Martinussen (1997) provides a detailed guide to competing theories of development and
notes that "a consensus has never prevailed on what development is or should be" (p35). He
identifies some nine conceptions of development noting that while some of these "are still
widely used, other have been given up by most researchers and practitioners ... Over the last
four decades the general tendency is this respect has been to abolish one-dimensional
conceptions focusing on economic growth and replace them with multi-dimensional notions
incorporating non-economic aspects as well" (Martinussen, 1997, p35). It seems, therefore,
that there will be no theoretical or practical closure on debates over development for some
time. The message, however, seems to be that development is now recognized to be more
than economic growth and requires consideration of social, cultural, political and
environmental factors.

11
locked up in nature". To combine the two concepts together without modifying

either is clearly problematic.

The presence of this paradox requires further consideration. Redclift (1987)

suggests that sustainable development "means more than seeking a

compromise between the natural environment and the pursuit of economic

growth. It means a definition of development which recognizes that the limits

of sustainability have structural as well as natural origins" (p199, cf Tisdell,

1993, p131 and Turner, 1988a, p5 who note that originally environmental

conservation and economic growth were seen to be compatible). Further,

Redclift (1987) suggests that:

"’development’ be subjected to redefinition, since it is impossible for

accumulation to take place within the global economic system we have

inherited without unacceptable environmental costs. Sustainable

development, if it is to be an alternative to unsustainable development,

should imply a break with the linear model of growth and accumulation

that ultimately serves to undermine the planets' life support systems"

(p3/4).

In the context of the Rio conference, Grubb et al., (1993) identify a parallel to

the above point noting that:

"If the end-point [of development] is supposed to be so radically

different from the current resource-intensive pattern of industrialised

countries, a central question has to be how the already industrialised

countries are supposed to develop towards such a state. Sporadic

12
 attacks by some developing countries on the consumption patterns of

the North, and the need to encourage cleaner technologies, did not

amount to any clear vision of alternative paths for Northern

development ... There seemed little recognition of the fact that the

UNCED agenda was incoherent unless ‘development' was broadened

to include questions about the future development of industrialised

countries" (p32).

Another limitation of Rio, which emerges with the benefit of some eight years

of observing its impact, is that is has had little impact in terms of improving

either the state of the environment or the living conditions of the majority of

the world’s population. While in some places and for some issues (notably

CFC’s) there have been environmental improvements, by and large the state

of the environment has continued to decline (see, for example, Vidal 1997),

although the rate of decline may have decelerated. With regard to issues of

social justice, it seems fair to say that the indicators have also continued to

move in the wrong direction - inequality is at least as extreme as before and

again appears to be growing (see, for example, Goodland et al., 1994).

The key structural question inherent within sustainable development,

therefore, appears to be a question of how to organize economic systems so

that development (under some revised definition) takes place without

undermining the environment, on which all present and any future

development rests. This is a tall order, as perhaps could be expected from a

13
concept such as sustainable development, and the answers to such a

question are not readily apparent. For example, Redclift (1987) asserts that,

"the intellectual traditions which we drawn upon for solutions to

problems point in different directions ... Neither neo-classical or Marxist

economics take a sufficient account of the environment, while

environmental positions provide only the vaguest guidelines for

negotiating a more constructive relationship with nature" (p199).

A number of points can be drawn from this brief review of the international

development literature. First, the impetus for proposing sustainable

development arises from the perception that current economic development is

not sustainable and that the human and environmental cost of this

unsustainability is unacceptable. Second, it is clear that the core concern of

sustainable development is on meeting human needs of all the peoples of the

planet, now and in the future. Indeed, the moral imperative of sustainable

development is focused on the achievement of social justice for the very

poorest occupants of the planet. Third, while the way in which sustainable

development has been conceived of has garnered considerable support, this

has been at the cost of ‘fudging’ the issues to a considerable degree. In

particular, the tensions between economic growth (based on increased

throughput) and development (more broadly conceived) sit at the core of

sustainable development. The concerns over the nature of economic growth

and the type of human development experienced, lead directly to a

consideration of business practices because (at least in ‘developed’ countries)

14
it is business which organises and ‘delivers’ growth for economies and,

purportedly, development for those who purchase goods and services from

business.

3.0 ‘Envisioning a sustainable corporation’

This section seeks to place some ‘flesh' on the ‘bare bones' of sustainable

development and to sketch possible implications which arise for business

operations from a sustainable development imperative. Three elements have

been suggested by, among others, Jacobs (1991, p60) as providing a starting

point in exploring the implications which arise for economic, social and

environmental behaviour if sustainable development is pursued. These are: (i)

a need to embed environmental considerations in the economic policy making

process, (ii) an inescapable commitment to equity (both between and within

generations) and (iii) a reconsideration of the meaning of development which

recognizes the concept as being wider than economic growth. While this

sketches the broad parameters of sustainable development it does not

pinpoint what a corporation committed to sustainable development would look

like in any detail. This is attempted here and two heuristics are used to this

end.

The first heuristic draws from the work of Gladwin (1993) and Hawken (1993)

who split sustainability into two components. These writers suggest that the

sustainable development agenda asks both social and environmental

questions with respect to organisational activities. In an environmental sense,

one would consider whether or not an organisation’s activities are ecologically

15
sustainable. Thus, one may consider how activities impact upon global

environmental stability (particularly climate change), biodiversity, resource

availability and use, waste assimilation capacities and population carrying

capacities. These concerns focus broadly on the ‘efficiency' with which the

environment is used, hence this element is often described as eco-

efficiency.10 Eco-efficiency, therefore, is compatible with the Brundtland

Report definition of sustainable development which identifies that the

preservation of the environment is necessary for future human development

and could be seen to be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for

achieving sustainable development. For example, if development were

ecologically sound but if the benefits of that development were spread so

unevenly that some people's needs were not met, then sustainable

development would not be achieved. This is where the second component of

sustainability, eco-justice, becomes relevant.

Given that the pursuit of sustainability implies that the needs of the present,

and future, generations are met, the distribution of the benefits of

development are also important. The term ‘eco-justice’ is often used to

capture these concerns. In particular, questions as to how the benefits and

costs of development are distributed within the current time period

(intragenerational equity) and between this and future time periods

10
This element of sustainable development, strictly speaking, has a wider focus than
efficiency. Questions of scale and the absolute impact of activities are also relevant. For
example, if an organisation increases the efficiency by which it uses, say, resources while at
the same time increases the scale of its operations total environmental impact may still
increase. Eco-efficiency requires that absolute impact decreases. This, in turn, may require
substantial efficiency gains in the face of increasing activity levels (see von Weizsacker et al.,
1998, for an introduction to these issues).

16
(intergenerational equity) arise. The Brundtland Report, for example, makes it

clear that "meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity

to fulfil their aspirations for a better world" (UNWCED 1987, p8) is required

within the terms of sustainable development. Further, the Brundtland Report

indicates that "sustainable global development requires that those who are

more affluent adopt lifestyles within the planet's ecological means"

(UNWCED, 1987, p9). Implicit in this is the possibility that there may be

decreased in levels of material wealth in the ‘developed@ world. Eco-justice

may, therefore, have a large impact on the operation of business activities

which have traditionally focused around delivering greater levels of material

wealth to sub-groups within society on the basis of increasing consumption

levels or via wealth accumulation. Sustainable development, therefore,

constitutes a challenge to current business behaviour which underlies that

development pattern. Under the banner of eco-justice, issues such as income

distribution, current population levels, future population growth patterns, and

equally importantly, consumption patterns in the ‘developed’ and ‘developing’

world arise. Indeed, these issues contain an indication of why sustainability is

potentially a radical concept. Eco-justice, at least potentially, demands a

fundamental rethink of how we conduct our lives in the ‘developed’ world.

Neither Gladwin (1993) or Hawken (1993) provide detailed guidance as to the

relative weights which may be given to eco-efficiency and eco-justice

preferring to see them as ‘different but equal' elements of sustainable

development. Such an approach certainly has much to recommend it (if only

that it offers no hostages to fortune), however, the relative weighting or

17
priorities which are assigned to these two components may well provide

insights into more subtle thought processes which are taking place within

business. Other commentators are more willing to consider the ranking or

weighting of these elements. For example, Dovers (1989) suggests that

"sustainability is a value - it is the moral choice of accepting intergenerational

equity as an overriding ethic" (p34). This focus on equity first, however, is

often lost in debates around sustainable development. For example, Robins

and Trisoglio (1995) note that

"there has been no serious attempt to pursue to its logical extent the

Brundtland Report's objective of ‘meeting needs' of current and future

generations in the industrial context. In a world of increasing poverty

and inequality, this would mean questioning the continuing

concentration of industrial process and product development funding in

the saturated markets of the North, which the ‘green consumer'

movements of Europe and North America have scarcely begun to

challenge" (p161).

Further, Robins and Trisoglio (1995) go on to suggest that in the pursuit of

sustainability the "first priority would be to redirect corporate energies to

satisfy the broader human aspects of development" (p162) and then the

"second priority would be to maximize long-run efficiency in the use of

environmental resources" (p162). Such a view is also consistent with Jacobs'

(1991) second condition for sustainability - the inescapable commitment to

equity between and within generations.

18
Whatever the relative weighting between eco-efficiency and eco-justice, it is

clear that there is a need to mesh the two elements. Efficiency without justice

will not alleviate problems which arise from the development question and will

ultimately result in the undermining of the lives of less privileged members of

society. Likewise, a narrow justice focus and the expense of efficiency may

eventually run up against global physical boundaries, particularly if ‘needs’ are

defined as a Western standard of living for all. Hence, the two elements of

sustainable development have to be pursued in unison.

The second heuristic for understanding sustainable development in a

business context draws from and builds on the first and attempts to identify

key questions which need to be answered in order to better understand the

implications which arise from eco-efficiency and eco-justice. While, there is no

agreement as to what would be sustainable, it is possible to outline broad

parameters, or issues of concern, which need to be addressed when

considering sustainability. Figure 2 explores eight key questions which frame

the sustainability debate and responses to these questions result in possible

positions being identified: ‘strong' and ‘weak' sustainability.11

11
A parallel may be suggested between ‘weak' and ‘strong' sustainability with concepts of
‘shallow' and ‘deep' ecology suggested by Arne Naess. Capra and Pauli (1995) describe the
difference between the two in this way. "Shallow ecology is anthropocentric. It views humans
as above, or outside of nature, as the source of all value, and ascribes only instrumental, or
use value to nature. Deep ecology does not separate humans from the natural environment,
nor does it separate anything else from it. It does not see the world as a collection of isolated
objects but rather as a network of phenomena that are fundamentally interconnected and
interdependent. Deep ecology recognizes the intrinsic value of all living beings and views
humans as just one particular strand in the web of life. It recognizes that we are all embedded
in, and dependent upon, the cyclical processes of nature" (p3).

19
 Figure 2: 'Strong' and 'weak' sustainability
Aspect `Strong' Sustainability
Focus of the Fundamental examination of
pursuit of the relationship between
sustainability and humans and their
the impetus for environment and with each
change. other.
View of nature- Humans and nature are not
human separate from each other and
interaction. harmony between the two is
sought.
What do we wish Other species, not just the
to sustain? human species are to be
maintained.
The gap between Present situation is a long
the present and a way from a sustainable one,
sustainable it is so far away it is almost
future. impossible to imagine what
sustainability looks like. The
time span of change may
take 150-200 years.
Extent of change Fundamental, structural
required. change is likely to be
required.
Nature of the Likely to require a
process of getting participatory, transparent and
to a sustainable democratic process.
path. Technical fixes may generate
more side effects than they
solve.
Relevance of eco- Intragenerational equity is an
justice concerns - integral and essential part of
Who is to be sustainability. Focus on third
sustained? world conditions and
aspirations cannot be
avoided.
Sustainable in The nature of economic
what way? growth may need to be
redefined or abandoned as a
dominant goal. This raises
questions about how we
currently measure and view
development.
20
`Weak' Sustainability
Concerned to prevent an
environmental catastrophe which
would threaten human society.
The natural environment is a
resource, humans need to better
master the environment to solve
present problems.
The human species is what we
are seeking to sustain.
Present situation is near to a
sustainable one, over next 30-50
years it should be reached.
Sustainability is achievable with
incremental adjustment of the
current system.
Authoritative and coercive
structures can be utilized (for
example, market forces). Greater
technological development will
allow problems to be solved.
Intragenerational equity is a
separate issue, sustainability
focus is primarily on ecological
issues, equity issues will follow
from them. Primary focus is on
sustaining Western populations.
Sustainability of the Western
civilization at, at least, the current
level of economic development.
There is a belief that economic
development is actually essential
for the pursuit of sustainability.
Extracted from: Bebbington and Thomson (1996) and adapted from Redclift

(1987), Gray et al., (1993) and Turner (1993).

Positions on the ‘strong'/’weak' continuum could be suggested to be a function

of: perceptions about the seriousness of the environmental and social crisis,

whether one believes the source of the crisis lies in the system by which

development takes place and the relative emphasis one places on eco-

efficiency and eco-justice concerns. The ‘weak' sustainability position does

not question the present mode of economic development and views

sustainable development as being compatible with some modified version of

‘business as usual'. In contrast, the ‘strong' sustainability position throws this

assumption into doubt and seeks to redefine the ends which human

populations (especially in the West) should seek. In particular, there is the

suggestion that, once basic needs are met, increased material consumption

may not constitute ‘development’.

These two heuristics (eco-efficiency/eco-justice and ‘strong'/’weak'

sustainability) provide a context within which the remainder of this section is

developed. The analysis follows a series of steps. First, a case is made that

the present operation of corporations has not resulted in sustainable

development. The reasons for this are explored and it is suggested that the

engine of current development, economic growth based on increased material

throughput, is the key inhibitor to a move towards sustainable development.

As long as this issue remains unaddressed there will be tensions between the

rhetoric and reality of achieving sustainable development.

21
Figure 3 is a pedagogic device which speculates about the relationship

between eco-efficiency and eco-justice and considers the extent to which

business activities have reached these objectives from an intra and inter

generational basis.12 In each box possible sustainability conditions are

proposed. As indicated in Figure 3, with the possible exception of the eco-

efficiency/intragenerational equity box for some specific companies, business

as a whole is not sustainable.

Figure 3: Business contributions to sustainable development

Eco-efficiency Eco-justice
Criteria: No net environmental Criteria: Distribution of resources
13
impact in this generation. such that the needs of all
members of the current generation
are met.
Intra-
generational Where business is utilizing a The benefits of development are not
equity resource in a sustainable manner evenly distributed within the current
there will be no negative impact on generation. Indeed, business could
the biosphere within the current be seen to be one mechanisms by
generation. Likewise, if business is which wealth is transferred from the
operating within the waste ‘poor' to the ‘rich'.
assimilation capacity of the
biosphere this condition may be
met.
Criteria: No net environmental Criteria: Distribution of resources
impacts between this and future between this and future generations
generations. such that future needs can be met.

Inter- Where there is any o l ss of critical Without intra-generational equity,

generational elements of the ecosphere (such inter-generational equity is unlikely
equity as a loss of biodiversity or ozone to be achieved.
depletion) this condition will not be
met. With regard to other elements
of the biosphere, achievement of
eco-efficiency depends on the
substitutability of natural resources
and other forms of capital.

12
This draws from the teaching slides of Rob Gray, University of Glasgow.
13
In this context, a minimum set of needs have been identified by the United Nations to
include: clean water, access to shelter and fuel, security and sufficient food.

22
This view is reiterated by Gray and Bebbington (1996) who suggest that:

"at minimum, a sustainable business is one which leaves the

environment no worse off at the end of each accounting period than it

was at the beginning of that accounting period. For full sustainability,

the sustainable business would also re-dress some of the excesses of

current un-sustainability and consider the intra-generational

inequalities. It is perfectly clear that few, if any, businesses, especially

in the developed economies, come anywhere near to anything that

looks remotely like sustainability" (p3).

If the thrust of Figure 3 and the above quote are accepted, it becomes

imperative to explore why this is the case. The role of economic growth in

both driving corporate activities and in constraining organisations' flexibility in

the face of calls for sustainability may be suggested as being the key to

companies' failure to currently engage in sustainable development. The

pinpointing of this element arises because the pursuit of profits via expanded

levels of economic growth is, at present, the goal of corporate activity. Gray

and Bebbington (1996) identify the tensions which arise in requiring

corporations to become sustainable, without changing the ‘rules of the game'

under which they operate.

"Global society has a right to expect business to do that at which it is

most accomplished, i.e. to pursue traditional modes of efficiency, to

seek market-lead innovation and to respond rapidly and successfully to

changes in the ‘playing field' -- changes in markets, prices, incentives,

tastes and so on. It is not clear whether business can be expected to

23
 provide, on its own initiative, the innovative ways of thinking, the drastic

re-design of life-styles, the costly structural re-adjustments and the

major redistribution of wealth which are patently essential for a

sustainable future" (Gray and Bebbington, 1996, p2).

Thus the idea that corporations can unproblematically contribute to

sustainable development is remote. This is not, however, to deny that

business could achieve some eco-efficiencies (although the costs of being

eco-efficient by a factor of ten may be beyond business). Indeed, Gray and

Bebbington (1998, p11), quoting O'Conner (1997) state that the "evidence

favours the judgement that capitalism is not ecologically sustainable" (p95)

and "[i]f there is any evidence [to the contrary]... it is ... elusive evidence"

(Gray and Bebbington, 1998, p37). Indeed, others are more categorical in

their judgements: May et al., (1996) assert that "the imperative of

industrialized countries to promote economic progress has undermined longer

term sustainability" (p1). Dovers (1989) tempers this argument a little when he

suggests that "what is important is the kind of growth ... exponential and

indefinite material growth is not sustainable, but ‘growth' in technological

expertise, education or community health certainly may be" (p34). In this

manner Dovers emphasises and reflects Jacobs (1991) third criteria for

sustainability: that the quality of development be redefined and, in particular,

be decoupled from economic growth. These types of conclusions have lead

commentators to suggest that envisaging the sustainable corporation "implies

nothing less than a radical redefinition of the social contract that business

maintains with society" (Gladwin et al., 1995, p37 quoted in Gray and

24
Bebbington, 1998, p12). How such a reorientation could be achieved,

however, is more difficult to envisage.

In summary, this section has sought to sketch what a sustainable corporation

would look like, drawing from the international development literature. It has

been argued that the core aspect of the debate regarding sustainable

development in the international development literature (that is, the nature

and role of economic growth) has implications for envisaging a sustainable

corporation. To date, however, the desirability and nature of economic growth

has remained unquestioned in business circles. Indeed, there has been not

inconsiderable effort directed to defending economic growth and to deflecting

attention from it The final aspect which this paper examines, however, is how

accountants have conceptualised sustainable development.

4.0 Accounting for sustainable development

Sustainable development has been considered within the accounting literature

in the context of social and environmental accounting and reporting (hereafter

SEAAR). This has arisen because accounting for sustainable development

shares some of the concerns of SEAAR. The literature concerned with

accounting for sustainable development all dates, as could be expected, from

after the publication of the Brundtland Report. This section reviews the

sustainability and accounting literature and attempts to theorise the material.

In the first instance, however, the links between this literature and SEAAR are

tentatively suggested.

25
As suggested in the above paragraph, the sustainable development and

accounting literature can be thought to be related to SEAAR because both

areas consider the same range of issues, namely the social and

environmental impacts of corporate activity. There are, however, differences

between the two areas, albeit that these are poorly articulated at the present

moment. Two main differences are suggested here. First, the extent to which

the present economic arrangements are challenged by each area differs.

Second, the position from which accounting for sustainable development can

be theorised may be different from that of SEAAR.

In brief, SEAAR examines particular areas where accounting affects its

substantive environment and seeks to develop accounting related tools to

remedy these effects. At times, this has lead to the questioning of the system

which produced these effects but, at least in part, this critique has remained

piecemeal (indeed this is the essence of Tinker et al., 1991). For example,

discussions about providing information concerning employee well-being,

consultation, levels of remuneration and such like may be (although not

necessarily must be) conducted without reference to the underlying

relationship between society, the State and corporations and the place of

employees as a factor of production. Likewise, Burchell et al., (1985) illustrate

how the value added statement failed to question the underlying mode of

capitalist production and indeed assisted the creation of an illusion of a

commonality of interests which they perceive did not exist.

26
In contrast, sustainable development (at least as understood here) places the

consideration of the organisation of economic life at the centre of the debate

and calls for a fundamental rethink of how society organises and conducts

itself. As a result, the emphasis on what is taken for granted and what is ‘up

for debate’ differs, with sustainability potentially raising fundamental questions

for society. Further, sustainable development (because of the combination of

social, environment and economic concerns it addresses) provides greater

potential for more fundamental change. In a similar manner, sustainability

views social, environmental and economic issues as being closely inter-

related to each other whereas SEAAR does not necessarily link these

elements together.

At present, accounting for sustainable development falls short of a

comprehensive, coherent fully linked image of how an organisation relates to

the social, environmental and economic arenas. The potential, however, and

indeed the need to do this, is central to the accounting for sustainability

agenda. Whilst noting this difference, it is also fair to say that there has been

a shift in recent years towards a more systematic understanding of SEAAR.

For example the differences between Gray et al. (1987) and Gray et al. (1996)

reflects critiques from, for example, Tinker et al. (1991) and Puxty (1991) and

SEAAR’s focus has expanded to encompass an examination of how a pristine

liberal economic democracy may operate and to questioning this model of the

world.

27
The ability of SEAAR to address systematic factors, however, can be thought

to be limited if one considers what SEAAR usually focus on. In particular,

SEAAR usually retains its focus on a reasonably tightly defined entity and

consider that entity's interactions with its environment (in the broadest sense

of the word). As such SEAAR may be considered to be entity or business

centred. This focus can be contrasted with an account which focuses on, say,

society or the environment as the entity of interest with an account thereby

focusing on how a business or several businesses impact upon society or the

environment. Accounting experiments which attempt to invert this focus from

the accounting entity onto a larger social or physical entity have not yet been

undertaken (but see Gray et al., 1997 and Jones and Matthews, 2000). It may

be that such a study would cease to be an ‘accounting’ study and become

‘geography’ or ‘economics’. Perhaps such a study would be too complex to

enable an account to be created or it would be too hard to gather the data.

Alternatively, it may be that as accountants we have not thought of creating

accounts in this way. It seems plausible, however, that such an account would

create a radically different understanding of the nature of organisations and

how they interact with their social and environmental surroundings.

The second point of difference between accounting for sustainable

development and SEAAR relates to how the two areas can be theorised.

SEAAR has primarily been theorised and based on notions of accountability

(see, for example, Gray et al., 1987; 1996). It is not entirely clear whether this

is, or could be, an appropriate basis for the development of arguments to

support accounting for sustainable development. An accountability centred

28
analysis of sustainable development is difficult because the focus of

sustainability is not on the organisation and its impacts rather it is outcome

orientated in that it seeks to understand what kind of development should be

sought by society and the most appropriate mechanism for doing this. Further,

the parties to the accountability relationship, if one could be inferred, in the

case of sustainable development are less clear. Future generations and those

members of the current generation which are poorly served by current

economic arrangements are not usually able to be actively involved in

accountability relationships in the same way as many SEAAR stakeholders

(such as employees, trade unions, consumers, consumer groups and local

communities). In addition, enforcing accountability relationships may be

problematic (see also Tricker, 1983, who identified this point as generally

being an issue with the accountability framework). This suggests that an

accountability framework may be limiting from a sustainable development

perspective. In a similar vein, notions of democracy and the role of SEAAR

information in enhancing democracy may not translate into a sustainable

development framework with the same agency issues as those raised by

accountability arising in this context. Hence, the theorising of the accounting

and sustainability link within the context of SEAAR is problematic and

reinforces the observation that accounting for sustainable development is not

simply a combination of accounting for social and environmental impacts as

per the existing SEAAR literature. Rather, consideration of SEAAR may be a

necessary but not sufficient step along the accounting for sustainable

development path.

29
The literature which attempts to link accounting and sustainable development

can be thought of as arising from three distinct sources. First, the professional

literature which champions the develop of SEAAR has also, at times, lent

support to the notion that sustainable development is of relevance to

accountants. Second, from time to time supra-national policy bodies, most

notably the United Nations, have sponsored work which addresses

accounting for sustainability. Finally, a diverse and growing literature which

addresses the relevance of sustainable development to accounting and

explores how one might account for sustainability has been developed in,

primarily, academic journals.

In addition, material from these three sources could be seen as falling into

three categories. The first comprises of discussions of sustainable

development and how it may impact upon accounting. The literature in this

category typically professes general support for the notion of sustainable

development and asserts, with very little analysis, that sustainability is a ‘good

thing’ and thus accountants should be involved in its pursuit. For example,

see Macve and Carey (1992), Batley and Tozer (1993), Canadian Institute of

Chartered Accountants (1993), Geno (1995) and Stone (1995). There is a

tendency in this literature (and much of what follows) to start with a discussion

of sustainable development but then go on to focus on the environmental

aspects of the concept without recognizing that this ‘sleight of hand’ has taken

place. Further, this literature does not usually include a discussion of the

economic arrangements in which firms are embedded. This work is not

explored in any detail here, however, the fact that this material exists at all

30
suggests that there is some level of awareness and acceptance that

sustainable development has relevance to the field of accounting.

The second sub-set of the accounting and sustainable development literature

attempts a more systemic examination of the issues which arise from

sustainable development and how accounts could be constructed in broad

terms to reflect these issues. For example, Gray and Bebbington (1996) and

Bebbington and Thomson (1996) explore business conceptions of sustainable

development in order to gain some understanding as to whether business

understand sustainable development in the same way as the concept is

understood within the international development literature. Further, these

reports seek also suggest the possible role which accounting may have play

articulating sustainability at the organisational level. Drawing from this work

figure 4 suggests how accounting could be categorized using the two

heuristics developed in the business and sustainable development literature.

In particular, the eco-efficiency and eco-justice split is combined with the

‘strong’ and ‘weak’ continuum of sustainable development to create a

template of how existing (and suggested) SEAAR activities could contribute to

our understanding of sustainable development. Further, the implication behind

Figure 4 is that a mixture of SEAAR techniques could be utilized to provide, in

conjunction with the traditional financial accounts (or reconceptualised

accounts of economic activity), a fledgling account of the extent to which an

organisation is moving towards or away from unsustainability.

31
 Figure 4: Roles of accounting in the pursuit of sustainability
Improvement within current economic orthodoxy (Reducing un-sustainability/weak
sustainability):
ECO-EFFICIENCY ISSUES ECO-JUSTICE ISSUES
* EMAS accounting - for wastes, * Employee and employment reporting,
efficiency, energy, pollution etc. ("Pollution information for collective bargaining:
Prevention Pays"): * Value-added statements:
* Reworking investment appraisal * Bilan Social:
methods: * Community reporting:
* Contingent liabilities, asset revaluations * Stakeholder analysis.
and other financial reporting issues:
* Tellus Institute methodology:
* Basic environmental reporting.
Recognition of the demands of sustainability (strong sustainability)
ECO-EFFICIENCY ISSUES ECO-JUSTICE ISSUES
* Sustainable cost calculation and * Full social reporting and social
reporting: bookkeeping systems:
* Full cost accounting (EU's Fifth Action * External social audits:
Programme): * Transparency on transfer pricing and
* Advanced environmental and resource acquisition issues:
sustainability reporting (including Life
Cycle Assessment and okobilanz) -
accountability and transparency.

Adapted from: Gray and Bebbington (1996).

Milne (1996) also provides a detailed examination of sustainability, this time

within the context of management accounting decision making (see also

Birkin and Woodward, 1997a. 1997b, 1997c, 1997d, 1997e, 1997f). He

proposes a "framework of analytical approaches to environmental resources

within which to view existing future accounting developments" (Milne, 1996,

p135). He stops short, however, of considering the detailed conditions in

which sustainable development may be adopted within a business. Nor does

he develop practice based examples of what an account of sustainability may

entail. It may be too early to expect this kind of work, however, some material

is emerging which attempts to address these more practical concerns.

32
The final sub-set of the sustainability literature attempts to formulate new

accountings which focus on the demands of sustainable development. This

work is, by and large, less systematic than Milne’s (1996) work but has the

advantage of presenting, and possibly ‘testing’ the efficacy of, more concrete

proposals of new forms of accounting. In the earliest work in the area, Gray

(1992) introduces the possibility of the construction of an account of

ecological sustainability by linking accounting to capital maintenance issues

(once again there is a narrowing of focus from sustainability to ecological

sustainability). Gray (1992) draws heavily on the work of environmental

economists14 such as Turner (1987, 1988b) and Daly (1980) who propose that

the planet can be sustained if three types of capital are maintained: critical

natural capital, substitutable natural capital and human capital.15 Accounting

for flows within each category of capital could be used to inform both

organisations and society of how company activities were affecting the

composition of the planet's total capital. Gray (1992) extends this analysis to

the idea of calculating a ‘sustainable cost' for an organisation's activities which

involves attempting to:

"derive a parallel accounting system which provides calculations of

what additional costs must be borne by the organisation if the

organisational activity were not to leave the planet worse off, i.e. what it

would cost at the end of the accounting period to return the planet and

14
For details of more recent work which is cognate to the sustainable cost idea see Ekins
(2000).
15
Critical natural capital are those elements of the biosphere which are essential for life and
which must remain inviolate (for example, the ozone layer, a critical mass of trees,
biodiversity). Substitutable natural capital are those elements of the biosphere which are
renewable or for which substitutes can be found (for example, non-extinct species,
woodlands, fishing stocks). Human-made capital are those elements which are created from
the biosphere by humans (for example, machines, buildings, roads).

33
 biosphere to the point it was at the beginning of the accounting period"

(Gray, 1992, p419).

Gray (1992) proposes deducting the ‘sustainable cost' from the conventional

profit measure to ascertain the extent to which organisations are living off

environmental capital and suggests that, "[t]he probability is that no Western

company has made a ‘sustainable' profit for a very long time, if at all"

(p419/420, see also Gray et al., 1993; Gray 1994).

Bebbington and Tan (1996, 1997) and Bebbington and Gray (forthcoming)

explore whether or not and how such an account could be developed in the

context of a real organisation. While the experimentation is still in

development it is now apparent that the sustainable cost idea has problems in

terms of how it can be applied in practice. In particular, the costing aspects of

such an exercise have proved problematic (as indeed Abt, 1977 and Estes,

1976 found out in the early social accounting work).

It would appear, however, that some attempt to more fully cost the

environmental (and perhaps the social) aspects of organisation's activities will

continue to be developed. For example, Ontario Hydro (United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 1996) and the Tellus Institute (White et al.,

1993) report on attempts to do so and the European Union (1992) have

indicated an intention to pursue this idea in the form of full cost accounting so

that "the consumption and use of environmental resources are accounted for

as part of the full cost of production and reflected in market prices" (European

34
Union, 1992, Vol II, p67, see also Bebbington, 1993). Hence, with this type of

policy impetus the prominence of accounting for sustainable development via

the full cost accounting mechanism can be expected to continue to influence

the research agenda and practical experiments (see also Bebbington et al., in

review).

In addition to the abovementioned work, the idea of a sustainable cost

calculation has been applied to three corporations by Forum for the Future.16.

Forum for the future have sought to identify for Interface Europe (see Howes,

2000), Anglian Water (see their Summary Environment and Community

Report 2000, p.5) and Wessex Water (see their Striking the Balance 2000

report) the “the notional cost the company would need to spend to restore or

avoid the environmental damage caused by its activities and hence, to

estimate what could be termed the company’s environmentally sustainable

profits” (Howes, 1999, p.32, emphasis added, see also Bebbington et al., in

review, for more details of these experiments). Once again, while these

examples of fuller cost accounting are very new, they represent a likely future

avenue by which accounting techniques could be used to articulate the costs

of ecological unsustainability.

Another experiment with Gray’s (1992) sustainable cost idea is Lamberton’s

(2000) attempt to “evaluate the performance of an organisation in achieving

the objectives of sustainable development” (p603). The organisation in

16
Forum for the Future describes itself as a “sustainable development organisation set up in
1996 by Jonathon Porritt, Sara Parkin and Paul Ekins. Through its education programme,
policy research, strategic consultancy and advocacy activities the Forum aims to accelerate

35
question is City Farm, a small business in Australia which is committed to

attempting to operate in a sustainable manner as it supplies organic fruit,

vegetables, herbs and seedlings to customers. The organisation has sought

to operate using ecological principles but Lamberton found that they were

unable to operate according to all the principles of sustainable development.

In particular, “four significant environmental problems were linked to the

operation of City Farm – ozone depletion, the enhanced greenhouse effect,

air pollution and loss of biodiversity” (p603). Further, it was suggested that

although ways of reducing City Farm’s impact exist they are at present

economically unviable. As a result, this case highlights (as does Gray and

Bebbington, 1996 and Bebbington and Gray, forthcoming) structural

impediments to sustainable business operations.

The final project of relevance in this context is a United Nations sponsored

research project developed by Rubenstein in which an attempt was made to

account for a sustainable forestry operation (Rubenstein 1994a; 1994b). In

essence, the project simulated for a fictional company what the pursuit of

sustainable forestry operations would look like and then generated

conventional accounting measures for more sustainable forestry scenarios.

Rubenstein was able to estimate measures such as expected return on

investment and incremental environmental expenditures required given each

scenario and how ecological ‘assets’ (held by society compared to those held

by the firm) would change under more sustainable forestry options. This work

provides an insight into the kinds of issues that arise as an organisation

the building of a sustainable way of life by taking a positive, solutions orientated approach to

36
attempts to develop more sustainable business scenarios and, more

importantly, makes clear that a drop in financial performance is inescapable if

more sustainable operations are adopted within the current ‘rules of the

game’.

In summary, research into how accounting could be used to support an

organisation's pursuit of sustainability is beginning to emerge. While much of

the work to date is of an assertive nature some material provides a framework

for thinking about how sustainability could be assessed as well as practical

examples of what such an account of an organisation impact on sustainable

development could look like. It seems possible to suggest that an account of

sustainability will involve SEAAR and a range of possible ways to provide

such an account exists. Development of actual accounting practice to reflect

these ideas, however, is in its early stages. In addition, to date this work has

tended to focus solely on ecological sustainability and has not sought to

interweave the economic, ecological and social elements of sustainable

development.

5.0 Concluding comments

In conclusion, this paper has sought to shed more light on the meaning of

‘sustainable development’. It has sought to do this by way of introducing some

background to the concept and by briefly tracing how sustainable

development moved from the international development literature to the

today’s environmental challenges” (Howes, 1999, p.32).

37
mainstream of international, national and local policy making. What is evident

from the international development literature is that the failure of past

economic development to provide ecologically sustainable and social just

development to all peoples of the world has lead to the current mode of

economic development being questioned. As one may expect, the debate

around whether or not our current mode of capitalism can deliver sustainable

development still rages and the conclusion of such a debate is a long way off.

What is pertinent for this paper, however, is the conception that sustainable

development is concerned with economic organisation in the first instance.

This point is often overlooked, with sustainable development discussions

starting with an outline of environmental problems and/or with social

concerns. While such concerns are part and parcel of any discussion of

sustainable development, they are not the central issue. Further, by starting

the discussion of sustainable development with ecological and social issues

attention is deflected from a discussion of economic organisation.

If one accepts that sustainable development is primarily about economic

organisation then business activities become an important focus point. This is

because, at least in the ‘developed’ world, businesses create the basis for

much of our economic activity. In addition, accounting as a technology which

may control business activities and which can be used to communicate the

outcomes of those activities, becomes a key element in the sustainable

development debate. This paper has sought to shed some light on both these

ideas. In the first instance, an attempt to envision a sustainable corporation

was undertaken, using two heuristics for breaking apart the issues inherent in

38
sustainable development. What this paper does not document (as it is beyond

its scope) is that there is considerable evidence that the business community

(or at least the business elites which control discourse about business and

sustainable development) have sought to ensure that questions of the

appropriateness of current business organisation have not been debated in

the international arena (see, for example, Beder, 1997, Sachs, 1995 and

Welford, 1997).

The final task undertaken in the paper was the sketch the issues which may

arise for the discipline of accounting as it seeks to understand the impact

which the sustainable development agenda may have on its operations. While

the accounting for sustainable development literature has usually shared the

concerns of the SEAAR literature, this paper questioned whether accounting

for sustainable development could be seen to be solely an extension of

SEAAR. In particular, the way in which SEAAR has traditionally been

theorised does not immediately seem wholly applicable to accounting for

sustainable development. There is, however, the need for further work and

much more careful thought in this area to better articulate the links between

these literatures. While the theoretical understanding of accounting for

sustainable development is far from even started there are a handful of

practical accounting based experiments which purport to seek to provide an

account of sustainable development. The ‘outcomes’ of these experiments are

only just emerging in the public domain and as they evolve further still we may

start to glimpse whether or not, and if so how, accounting might contribute to

the sustainable development debate.

39
References

Abt, C. (1977), The Social Audit for Management. New York: New York.
Anglian Water (2000), Summary Environment and Community Report.
Bartelmus, P. (1994), Environment, Growth and Development: The Concepts
and Strategies of Sustainability. London: Routledge.
Batley, H. and Tozer, L. (1993), ‘Sustainable development: an accounting
perspective’, Accounting Forum, (September): pp. 38-61.
Bebbington, J. (1993). ‘The European Community Fifth Action Plan: Towards
Sustainability’. Social and Environmental Accounting, 13(1): pp 9-11.
Bebbington, J. (1999). Accounts of and Accounting for Sustainable
Development. PhD dissertation: University of Dundee.
Bebbington, J. (2000). ‘Sustainable Development: Does it add up?’ CGA
Accounting Research Centre, University of Ottawa, Readings from the
1999 Annual Conference.
Bebbington, J. and R. Gray (forthcoming). ‘An Account of Sustainability:
Failure, Success and a Reconceptualisation’. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting.
Bebbington, J., R. Gray, C. Hibbitt and E. Kirk (in review). Full Cost
Accounting: An agenda for action. London: Association of Chartered
Certified Accountants.
Bebbington, J. and J. Tan (1996), ‘Accounting for Sustainability’. Chartered
Accountants Journal of New Zealand, Vol. 75, No. 6, pp. 75-76.
Bebbington, J. and J. Tan (1997), ‘Accounting for Sustainability’. Chartered
Accountants Journal of New Zealand, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 37-40.
Bebbington, J. and I. Thomson (1996), Business Conceptions of Sustainability
and the Implications for Accountancy. London: Association of
Chartered Certified Accountants.
Beder, S. (1997), Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism.
Dartington: Green Books.
Birkin, F. and D. Woodward (1997a), ‘Management Accounting for
Sustainable Development: Part 1: Introduction’. Management
Accounting, Vol. 75, No. 6, pp. 24-27.
Birkin, F. and D. Woodward (1997b), ‘Management Accounting for
Sustainable Development: Part 2: From economic to ecological
efficiency’. Management Accounting, Vol. 75, No. 7, pp. 42-45.
Birkin, F. and D. Woodward (1997c), ‘Management Accounting for
Sustainable Development: Part 3: Stakeholder analysis’. Management
Accounting, Vol. 75, No. 8, pp. 58-60.
Birkin, F. and D. Woodward (1997d), ‘Management Accounting for
Sustainable Development: 4: The eco-balance account’. Management
Accounting, Vol. 75, No. 9, pp. 50-52.

40
Birkin, F. and D. Woodward (1997e), ‘Management Accounting for
Sustainable Development: Part 5: Accounting for sustainable
development’. Management Accounting, Vol. 75, No. 10, pp. 52-55.
Birkin, F. and D. Woodward (1997f), ‘Management Accounting for Sustainable
Development: A zero-base approach to accounting for sustainable
development’. Management Accounting, Vol. 75, No. 11, pp. 40-43.
Burchell, S., C. Clubb and A. Hopwood (1985), ‘Accounting in its social
context: Towards a history of value added in the United Kingdom’.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.
381-413.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (1993), Environmental
Stewardship: Management, Accountability and the Role of Chartered
Accountants. Toronto: Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants:
Toronto.
Capra, F. and G. Pauli (1995), Steering Business Towards Sustainability.
Tokyo: United Nations' University Press.
Daly, H. (1980), Economy, Ecology, Ethics: Essays toward a Steady State
Economy. San Francisco: Freeman.
Dovers, S. (1989), ‘Sustainability: Definitions, Clarifications and Contexts’.
Journal of SID, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 33-36.
Ekins, P. (2000), Estimating Sustainability Gaps for the UK. London: Forum
for the Future.
Estes, R. (1976), Corporate Social Reporting. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Esteva, G. (1992), ‘Development’, pp. 6-37, in The Development Dictionary: A
Guide to Knowledge as Power. (Sachs, W. ed.). London: Zed Books.
European Union (1992), Fifth Action Programme. Com (92) 23 final - Vol.I-III,
Brussels, 27 March 1992. CB-CO-92-151-EN-C.
Geno, B. (1995), ‘Accounting for Sustainability: An Exploration of Accounting
Needs in the Ecologically Rational Society’. Accounting Forum , Vol. 19,
Nos. 2/3, pp. 176-194.
Gladwin, T. (1993), ‘Envisioning the Sustainable Corporation’. In Managing for
Environmental Excellence: The Next Business Frontier (Smith, ed).
Washington: Island Press.
Gladwin, T., J. Kennelly and T. Krause (1995), ‘Shifting Paradigms for
Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and
Research’. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 874-
907.
Goodland, R., H. Daly and J. Kellenberg (1994), ‘Burden Sharing in the
Transition to Environmental Sustainability’. Futures, Vol. 26, No. 2.
Goodman, D. and M. Redclift (1991), Environment and Development in Latin
America: The Politics of Sustainability. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.

41
Goodman, D. and M. Redclift (1991), ’Introduction’, pp. 1-23, in Environment
and Development in Latin America: The Politics of Sustainability.
Gray, R. (1992), ‘Accounting and environmentalism: an exploration of the
challenge of gently accounting for accountability, transparency and
sustainability’. Accounting Organisations and Society, Vol. 17, No. 5,
pp. 399-425.
Gray, R. (1994), ‘Corporate Reporting for Sustainable Development:
Accounting for Sustainability in 2000AD’. Environmental Values, Vol. 3,
No. 1, pp. 17-45.
Gray, R. and Bebbington, J. (1996). ‘Sustainable Development and
Accounting: Incentives and Disincentives for the Adoption of
Sustainability by Transnational Corporations’. In International
Accounting and Reporting Issues, 1995 Review. Geneva: United
Nations Centre for Trade and Development.
Gray, R. and J. Bebbington (1998), ‘Accounting and the Soul of Sustainability:
Hyperreality, Transnational Corporations and the United Nations’.
Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting conference
proceedings.
Gray, R., J. Bebbington and D. Walters (1993), Accounting and the
Environment. London: Paul Chapman: London.
Gray, R., C. Dey, D. Owen, R. Evans and S. Zadek (1997), ‘Struggling with
the praxis of social accounting: Stakeholders, accountability, audits and
procedures’. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 10,
No. 3, pp. 325-364.
Gray, R., D. Owen and C. Adams (1996), Accounting and Accountability.
Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Gray R., D. Owen and K. Maunders (1987), Corporate Social Reporting:
Accounting and accountability. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Grubb, M., M. Koch, A. Munson, F. Sullivan and K. Thomson (1993), The
Earth Summit Agreements: A Guide and Assessment. London:
Earthscan Publications.
Hawken, P. (1993), The ecology of commerce: a declaration of sustainability.
New York: Harper Business.
Hildyard, N. (1995), ‘Foxes in Charge of the Chickens’ pp. 22-35, in Sachs,
Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict.
Holdgate, M., K. Mohammed and F. Gilbert (1982), ‘The Stockholm
Conference’ pp. 4-18,.in The World Environment 1972 - 1982.
(Holdgate, M., K. Mohammed and F. Gilbert, eds.). Dublin: Tycooly
International.
Howes, R. (1999), ‘Accounting for environmentally sustainable profits’.
Management Accounting, (January): pp 32-33.
Howes, R. (2000), ‘Corporate Environmental Accounting: Accounting for
Environmentally Sustainable Profits’. In Greening the Accounts. John

42
 Proops and Sandrine Simon. A Volume in the International Library of
Ecological Economics. London: Edward Elgar Publishers.
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (1980). World Conservation
Strategy. Gland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature-
United Nations Environment Programme-World Wildlife Fund.
Jacobs, M. (1991), The Green Economy: Environment, sustainable
development and the politics of the future. London: Pluto Press.
Jones, M and J. Matthews (2000), Accounting for biodiversity: a natural
inventory of the Elan Valley Nature Reserve. London: Association of
Chartered Certified Accountants.
Jordan, A. (1993), The International Organisational Machinery for Sustainable
Development: Rio and the Road Beyond. East Anglia: Centre for Social
and Economic Research on the Global Environment.
Lamberton, G. (2000), ‘Accounting for Sustainable Development – A Case
Study of City Farm’. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 11, No.
5, pp. 583-605.
Lele, S. (1991), ‘Sustainable Development: A Critical Review’. World
Development, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 607-621.
McCormick, J. (1986), ‘The Origins of the World Conservation Strategy’.
Environmental Review, Vol. 10, pp. 177-187.
Macve, R. and A. Carey (1992), Business, Accountancy and the Environment:
A Policy and Research Agenda. London: Institute of Chartered
Accountants in England and Wales.
Martinis, J. (1997), Society, State and Market: A guide to competing theories
of development. London: Zed Books.
May, P., R. Bury, N. Erickson, J. Handier, J. Dixon, S. Michaels and D. Smith
(1996), Environmental Management and Governance:
intergovernmental approaches to hazards and sustainability. London:
Routledge.
Mayhew, N. (1997), ‘Fading to Grey: the Use and Abuse of Corporate
Executive's Representational Power’. In Welford, R. Hijacking
Environmentalism: Corporate Responses to Sustainable Development.
London: Earthscan.
Milne, M. (1996), ‘On sustainability; the environment and management
accounting’. Management Accounting Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 135-
161.
Norgaard, R. (1988). ‘Sustainable Development: A Co-evolutionary View’.
Futures, (December): pp 606-620.
O'Connor, J. (1997), ‘Is sustainable capitalism possible?’ pp. 93-111, in
McDonough, P and Prather, A. Green Management: A Reader.
London: Dryden
O'Riordan, A. (1988), ‘The Politics of Sustainability’ pp. 20-50 in Turner, R.K.
Sustainable Environmental Management: Principles and Practice.

43
Pirages, D. (1990), ‘Technology, Ecology and Transformations in the Global
Political Economy’. In Pirages and Sylvester. Transformations in Global
Political Economy. London: Macmillan Press.
Puxty, A. (1991), ‘Social Accountability and Universal Pragmatics’. Advances
in Public Interest Accounting, Vol. 4, pp. 35-45.
Redclift, M. (1987), Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions.
London: Methuen.
Redclift, M. (1992), Sustainable development and global environmental
change. Global Environmental Change, (March): pp. 32-42.
Reid, D. (1995), Sustainable Development: An Introductory Guide. London:
Earthscan.
Robins, N. and A. Trisoglio (1995), ‘Restructuring Industry for Sustainable
Development’ pp 161-173. In Kirby, et al., Earthscan Reader in
Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan.
Rubenstein, D. (1994a), Environmental accounting for the Sustainable
Corporation. London: Quorum Books.
Rubenstein, D. (1994b), ‘Beyond the Clear Cut: Accounting for our Forests’.
CA Magazine, (October): pp 23-29.
Sachs, W. (1992), The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as
Power. London: Zed Books.
Sachs, W. (1995), Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict. London:
Zed Books.
Sandbach, F. (1978), ‘The Rise and Fall of the Limits to Growth Debate’.
Social Studies of Science, Vol. 8, pp. 495-520.
Stone, D. (1995), ‘No Longer at the End of the Pipe, but still a Long Way from
Sustainability: A Look at Management Accounting for the Environment
and Sustainable Development in the United States’. Accounting Forum,
19(2/3): pp. 95-110.
Tinker, A., C. Lehman and M. Seamark (1991), ‘Falling down the hole in the
middle of the road: political quietist in corporate social reporting’.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 4(2): pp. 28-54.
Tisdell, C. (1993), ‘The nature of sustainability and of sustainable
development’. Environmental Economics: pp. 313-139.
Tolba, M. and A. El-Kholy (1992), The World Environment 1972 - 1992: Two
decades of challenge. London: Chapman & Hall.
Tricker, R. (1983), ‘Corporate responsibility, institutional governance and the
roles of accounting standards’. In Accounting Standards Setting - An
International Perspective. Boric, M. and Hopwood, A.G. London:
Pitman
Turner, K. (1987), ‘Sustainable Global Futures: Common Interest,
Interdependence, Complexity and Global Possibilities’. Futures: pp.
574-582.

44
Turner, K. (1988a), ‘Sustainability, Resource Conservation and Pollution
Control: An Overview’ pp 1-25. In Turner, K. Sustainable
Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and Practice.
London: Belhaven Press.
Turner, K. (1988b), Sustainable Environmental Management: Principles and
Practice. London: Belhaven Press.
Turner, K. (1993), Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management:
Principles and Practice. London: Belhaven Press: London.
United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987),
Our Common Future (The Brundtland Report). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1996), Environmental
Accounting Case Studies: Full cost accounting for decision making at
Ontario Hydro, (United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Washington).
Vidal, J. (1997), World `heads for disaster'. The Guardian, Tuesday January
28: p 4.
von Weizsacker, E., A. Lovins and H. Lovins (1998), Factor Four: Doubling
Wealth , Halving Resource Use. London: Earthscan: London.
Welford, R. (1997), Hijacking Environmentalism: Corporate Responses to
Sustainable Development. London: Earthscan: London.
Wessex Water Ltd (2000), Striking the Balance.
White, A., D. Savage and M. Becker (1993), Total Cost Assessment:
Acceleration industrial Pollution Prevention Through Innovative Project
Financial Analysis. Boston: Tellus Institute: Boston.

45
ABERDEEN PAPERS IN ACCOUNTANCY, FINANCE &
MANAGEMENT

LIST OF PAPERS AVAILABLE IN THIS FORMAT:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/accountancy/web_pgs/public/dept/Wps/Working_Papers.htm

These papers are delivered in electronic format and single print copies may be made for
personal and research use, without necessity of separate authorisation. Further print copies
may be ordered from the Department of Accountancy & Finance (address as below), at a
price of £5.00 per copy, payment by sterling cheque, enclosed with order.

Series Editor: Professor Roger Buckland, Department of Accountancy & Finance, University
of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3QY, Scotland. Email: r.buckland@abdn.ac.uk

Hard copies of papers and reprints in the series, published prior to this electronic format, can
be ordered from the Department, subject to availability.
Hard copy published working papers are:

W1* Performance in Electricity Area W10 The Value Added Accounting

Boards in the 1980s: a case study Principles of the OCAM Plan
Lydia Thomson Charles Elad
R2 The Political Implications of W11 Project Accounting - Issues and
Redefining UK Public Expenditure Applications
David Heald Alex Arth ur
W3 Critical Accounting Theory and W12 Accounting Harmony - Can the EC
Practical Philosophy Learn from the UK Experience?
Alex Arthur Catriona Paisey
R4 The Fight to Stay Mutual: Abbey W13 Towards a Model of Health Care
Members against flotation Purchasing: GP fundholders
Bob Perks Angus Laing & Seonaidh Cotton
W5 Foreign Currency Translation and W14 Implementing the OCAM Plan: two
FRS1 contrasting case studies
George Georgiou Charles Elad
W6 Next Steps Agencies: from W15 The Irish Stock Exchange and
managing by command to contract? Regulatory Change
Grant Jordan Christina Mulligan
W7* Formula-based Territorial Public W16 Financial Performance and Regulation
Expenditure in the UK in the Privatised RECs 1991-1994
David Heald Lydia Thomson & Margaret Herd
W8 Capital Planning in Scottish Local W17 Sizing up the Small Firm: UK and
Authorities Australian Experience
Michael Macarthur Martin Atkins & Julian Lowe
W9 Corporate Disclosure Regulation
and Practice in the Developing
Countries of Central Africa
Charles Elad

* Out of Print

ISSN 0962-4627

46