Owen 1997

This article was downloaded by: [Monash University Library]
On: 07 October 2014, At: 12:41

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Asia-Pacific Journal of
Accounting
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raae19
Green Accounting: Cosmetic

Irrelevance or Radical Agenda
for Change?
a b b
David Owen , Rob Gray & Jan Bebbington
a
University of Sheffield
b
CSEAR, University of Dundee
Published online: 29 May 2012.
To cite this article: David Owen , Rob Gray & Jan Bebbington (1997) Green
Accounting: Cosmetic Irrelevance or Radical Agenda for Change?, Asia-Pacific Journal
of Accounting, 4:2, 175-198, DOI: 10.1080/10293574.1997.10510519
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10293574.1997.10510519
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Monash University Library] at 12:41 07 October 2014
Green Accounting: Cosmetic
Irrelevance or Radical
Agenda for Change?
David Owen*
Rob Gray and Jan Bebbington**
ABSTRACT
Environmental accounting is enjoying an unprecedented resurgence to the point
where, for the first time in its relatively short history, it looks like becoming an
accepted part of the accounting firmament. However, there is a price for this
recognition. That is, for many commentators - especially those associated with
the accounting profession - environmental accounting is in the process of being
reduced to something which will code easily into existing financial accounting and/
or management accounting principles. If this were to happen then there is little of
value which, in our view, could be said about the subject. We view environmental
accounting as being a great deal larger in scope than this and, more especially, a
great deal more important than a minor adjustment to the costs or the risk profile of
a few companies. This distinction - between "conventional" and more "radical"
approaches to environmental (and social) accounting is central to this paper in which
we attempt to address the critics- most especially those from the, so called, critical
school- of the environmental (and social) accounting project. We find the charges
lodged by the critical school have crucial issues at their core which we, as
accountants, ignore at our peril. However, we also maintain that the critical theorists
have, themselves, failed either to recognise this distinction which we draw, or offer
any realistic alternative for the practice of "new" accounting. Criticism is very well
received if it is accurate and offers some useful way forward. We believe that
environmental (and social) accounting does this but we are not sure that the critical
theorists can legitimately make the same claim.
* (University of Sheffield)
** (CSEAR. University of Dundee)
Owen D., Gray R. and Bebbington, J. "Green Accounting: Cosmetic Irrelevance or Radical
Agenda for Change?", Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting, Vol 4, No. 2, December 1997,
pp. 175-198.
176 Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting December 1997
Introduction
The 1990's have witnessed a remarkable surge in interest on the part of both the
academic and professional accounting communities in the problems, and
potentialities, of accounting for the environment. The appearance of this special
issue of the Asia-Pacific Journal indeed serves to underline the fact that
environmental accounting now enjoys a firmly established position within the
accounting research agenda.
Of course, environmental accounting is not a "new" topic. A cursory glance at
the social accounting literature of the 1970's all too clearly demonstrates that many
of the theoretical concepts employed and practical techniques analysed, particularly

input-output analysis and reporting against targets, have already been widely aired
(see, for example, Ullmann, 1979; Lessem, 1977; Dierkes and Preston, 1977;
Dierkes, 1979). However, one major change of direction in both academic research
endeavour and evolving corporate reporting practice has been to divorce the
"environmental" from the "social" and to effectively displace the latter. The narrow
focus adopted contrasts sharply with the broad programme addressed by social
accounting in the truest sense of the term - this being the measurement and
communication of the social and environmental effects of an organisation's
economic actions to particular interest groups within society and to society at large
(Gray et al., 1987). More specifically, the main, although not exclusive focus of
social accounting is on how corporate activities affect not only the natural
environment but also employees, the consumer and the community. Above all,
social accounting's mission is to extend the accountability of organisations beyond
the traditional role of simply providing a financial account to capital providers, in
particular shareholders.
Not surprisingly, such a potentially radicaP mission has found little favour
within the portals of conventional, or liberal, "right wing" accounting research
endeavour (Gray et al., 1996). Operating from the (all too often implicit)
assumption that accounting is amoral, with its sole responsibility being to develop
and enhance the workings of the economic system to the benefit of the wealthy,
liberal economic analysis has largely dismissed social accounting as, at best,
irrelevant except insofar as it may be used sporadically by corporate management
as a legitimisation device (see, for example, Benston 1982, 1984).
Perhaps more surprisingly, "critical accounting" 2 scholarship has been equally
dismissive of social accounting. Here, the subject's proponents are accused of
exhibiting a passive acceptance of the existing social and political context for
corporate reporting, so that any prescriptions derived for changes in accounting
practice simply serve to legitimate corporate interests and are in essence merely an
Green Accounting: Cosmetic Irrelevance or Radical Agenda for Change? 177
extension of a system of systematically distorted communication practice that

supports privileged interests within society (Puxty, 1986). Bereft of any rigorous
theoretical underpinning (Cooper, 1988), social accounting stands charged with
being largely an exercise in "middle of the road" theorising that is;
"prompted by concerns about what is politically pragmatic and acceptable;
not what is socially just, scientifically rational, or likely to rectify social
ills arising from waste, exploitation, extravagance, disadvantage or
coercion" (Tinker et al., 1991, p. 29).
The sum result- the critical theorists argue- is that the palliatives advanced
deal with symptoms - not causes.

As Gray et al (1988) acknowledge, a substantial body of influential social
accounting research does appear to adopt the assumption that the purpose of social
reporting is to enhance the corporate image and/or that it is simply an extension of
traditional financial reporting designed to better inform investors. These themes
are particularly apparent in the burgeoning literature focusing on the relationship
between social responsibility measures of various types and the economic or stock
market performance of companies which has appeared over the past 20 years. 3
Clearly, such market centred work poses no real threat to the economic and political
status quo and thus provides considerable justification for the critical school's
rejection of the efficacy of the social accounting movement as a vehicle of social
change. Similar critique can be equally applied to recent developments in
environmental accounting which not only disinfect the environment of any social
connotation whatsoever but also are all too often driven by financial and operative
imperatives. Prominent examples here include the ever increasing number of
studies that seek to make the (physical) environmental elements of operations more
visible both internally, via the development of management accounting tools and
techniques (Schaltegger et al., 1996, Ch. 4), and externally, via tinkering at the
edges of the financial reporting framework (see, for example, Wambsganns and
Sanford, 1996).
As Bebbington (1997) points out, the critical school undoubtedly succeeds in
presenting a powerful, persuasive critique of the work of the social accounting
movement, including its latest environmental manifestation. Fundamental
questions are raised concerning the (social accounting) movement's potential for
generating an enabling, empowering and emancipatory form of accounting due to
its perceived inability to sufficiently dissociate itself from the social system it
purportedly seeks to reform. For those, such as the authors of the present paper,
who cling to a belief that a research agenda largely located within the confines of a
liberal economic democracy framework can begin to develop new more socially
and environmentally benign forms of accounting, which have the potential to create
a fairer, more just society, these questions must be addressed. This is a task we seek
to accomplish in the remainder of this paper.
This paper is structured as follows. First, the background to social and
environmental accounting is outlined and the main tensions within this field are
established. Analysis then shifts to the critical school's case against the social and
environmental accounting movement and the issue of capture, which is central to
the critical school's attacks, is discussed. The potential avoidance of capture is then
explored utilising the themes of administrative reform and institutional reform.
Finally, some concluding remarks are made.
Background
In order to set the scene for what follows, it seems apposite to talk briefly about
how we see environmental accounting. As has already been mentioned,
environmental accounting was, until the late 1980s, generally seen as a subset of
social accounting. Environmental accounting has now, however, (rightly or wrongly)
taken on a life of its own. Whilst environmental accounting may, on occasions,
draw from the earlier social and environmental accounting experience it is more
usually seen as a predominantly "new" area of accounting consideration. Only when
we consider sustainability do the strands of environmental accounting and (the
continuing strands of) social accounting look to re-merge.
That said, what are the current strands in environmental accounting? Figure 1
outlines the current state of play.
Figure 1
Elements of Environmental Accounting
• Environmental issues within management accounting and environmental

management systems (EMS) including environmental auditing;
• Environmental issues within conventional financial statements and financial

auditing;
• Environmental reporting and disclosure;
• Social accounting and reporting;
• Accounting and reporting for (un)sustainability and (un)sustainable development;

By far the bulk of academic attention - and virtually all professional and
business attention - is focused on the first two elements. These two elements we
might see as "the environment through the lens of business as usual" and "the
environment through the lens of GAAP". Neither have much to do with the
appalling and heart-breaking state of the global environment and its denizens -
human or otherwise. Rather, both are concerned with such aspects of the natural
environment as can be perceived through the lens of current practice.
Environmental management and the associated management accounting cannot
recognise (e.g.) starvation or species extinction because neither system has any
means to "code" these issues into a business language. These systems can, however,
observe - and react to - consents, prices, wastes, legal problems and reactions
from powerful stakeholders because these are business concepts. Similarly,
financial accounting cannot recognise aesthetic desecration, morally bankrupt
financial practices or ozone depletion because there are no accounting standards on
these things. It can, however, recognise liabilities, provisions and potential costs
because these are part of the language which currently constructs its world.
The interesting issue here for environmental (and social) accountants is how
on earth a sophisticated and well-developed system, like accounting, which is
administered by highly educated and undoubtedly intelligent people such as
accountants, can be so complicit in encouraging - even requiring - global
devastation in the name of the economic success we know as profit and growth. 4
More especially still, what sort of mind is it that can reduce such a notion as
complex and crucial as "environment" or "global" or "life" down to provisions,
costs and efficiency without noticing that this is the worst kind of reductio ad
absurdam? 5 But this is where so much environmental accounting attention is
directed and, as such, the criticisms of the critical theorists - see below - seem
highly apposite when applied to this area of environmental accounting.
However, trying to look on the bright side, it seems to us that we might be able
to see environmental accounting within GAAP and EMS as a first tentative step
towards a recognition of the real issues of accounting for the environment and, if
nothing else, raising the very idea of environmental (and social) concerns within
the traditionally, hermetically sealed, world of the accountant. More honestly,
however, we are not sure if we have reason to really feel that optimistic (we return
to this below). The three other areas of environmental (and social) accounting
provide tentative cause for optimism, however.
Environmental reporting is, to us, a new category of account. It refers to the
collation and disclosure of information about an organisation's interactions with
the environment - its resource usage, its pollution, its plans for less intrusive
technologies and so on. It is not an extension of financial reporting - although it

may very well appear in the annual report. As a new account, environmental
reporting has brought new categories of activity to mind and opened up new debates
about the organisation. Through new(ish) ideas like eco-balance, life-cycle analysis
and ecological footprint, we begin to see the organisation as an essentially
environmental unit. Thus, the environmental report stands in opposition to the
financial statements in which the organisation is to be viewed as a purely economic
unit. Here, we believe, lies the value of the environmental report.
The same can be said for social accounting and reporting. Whilst not yet as
popular as environmental reporting, social reporting recognises that social issues

are inextricably linked with environmental issues and are thus inseparable. Like
environmental reporting, the social account opens up new categories of meaning
for the organisation and its stakeholders and moves us further from the idea of an
organisation as purely an economic entity whose success (profit) is unrelated to
income distribution, unemployment, poverty and so on.
Finally, we see sustainability as the key issue for all of environmental (and
social) accounting and reporting. Despite attempts by the business and accounting
worlds to argue to the contrary (see, for example, Bebbington and Gray, 1996 and
Bebbington and Thomson, 1996 for a discussion and evidence), sustainability and
business-as-usual are simply incompatible. Sustainability raises the, to our mind,
unequivocal point, in a loud and clear voice, that the system of organisational life
we currently call "capitalism" and the accounting systems which serve, reify and
drive it are destroying the planet and its denizens. Such destruction is inevitable
given current measures of organisational survival and success - i.e. accounting.
Hence we might try and imagine new accountings that capture this
(un)sustainability (see, for example, Gray, 1992; Gray et al., 1993; Bebbington and
Tan, 1996, 1997; Bebbington and Gray 1997 for some possibilities).
So, environmental accounting is far from a homogeneous activity and research
into it is challenging and demanding. So much so that the majority of current
researchers are driven by a fundamental concern that: (a) there is something very
wrong with what passes for conventional accounting; and (b) as researchers we
have to find some way of improving the situation. For us, and most active
researchers 6 "environmental accounting" is not just another area of research, a new
issue of interest or a promising area in which to make a mark- it is a matter of life
or death and driven by (variously) moral and aesthetic outrage; a desire to serve the
public interest properly; a sense of real social responsibility; a genuine concern for
others and so on. This is not to try and claim any high moral ground but to make an
important distinction. Whilst many excellent and dedicated researchers concentrate
on (say) depreciation, ABC or the appropriate information for stock markets, it is
rare to find that such researchers believe this to be the most important issue in their
life or on the planet. For most environmental (and social) accountants their choice
of research represents a central and fundamental part of who they are and how they
wish to serve their community. Such beliefs are often amongst the most important
elements of the researcher's existence7•
So, this brings us finally, to a key point. Research in environmental (and social)
accounting is typically predicated on the assumption that there is a fundamental
flaw in accounting and financial practice. If that is so, tinkering with that practice
(through GAAP or EMS) is a waste of time - at best. We are looking for
something much more fundamental in how we imagine accounting systems for the
future. If on the other hand, one believes that accounting systems are really superb
things as they currently operate, why bother with environmental (and social)
accounting at all? It will, as Benston (1982, 1984) argues, simply get in the way of
making the rich and insulated shareholders of the west richer and more insulated.
With this brief background, we can now tum to examine the critiques of- and
critical theory debates about - environmental accounting in some detail. As will,
we hope, become apparent, central to the debate is how benign or otherwise one
currently sees conventional accounting practice, frameworks and research.
The Critical School's Case Against the Social and

Environmental Accounting Movement
Early radical critique of the social accounting movement emanated from a socialist,
largely Marxist, perspective. For writers such as Tinker et al., (1991) and Puxty
(1986; 1991) society is characterised by social conflict. In Tinker et al.,'s (1991)
analysis, the social accounting movement, as particularly represented in the work
of Gray et al., (1987; 1988), fails to examine the basic contradictions and antinomies
of the social system under investigation and is therefore, at best, irrelevant and, at
worst, malign in implicitly adopting a stance of "political quietism" that simply
benefits the already powerful (i.e. the capitalist class). Thus, for example, Puxty
writing in 1986 suggested the irrelevance of social accounting in noting that;
"more radical critics of capitalist society have been more concerned with
the broader issues of accountancy and accountants within that society than
particular (almost parochial) issues such as social accounting which
appears to be ... re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" (p.107).
However by 1991 Puxty had taken his critique a stage further in arguing that by
leaving basic societal structures intact social accounting can even lead to their
legitimation "since the powerful can point to their existence as evidence of their
openness in listening to criticism, it paves the way for ... the extension of power"
(p. 37).
Whilst, as we have already indicated, a similar critique can be levelled at later
environmental accounting initiatives, the elevation of the environmental aspect of
the social accounting agenda in recent times has given rise to new manifestations of
radical critique emanating from the perspectives of deep ecology (Maunders and
Burrit, 1991; Maunders 1996) and radical feminism (Cooper, 1992). Significantly,
whereas these latter perspectives offer quite disparate analyses of the failings within
liberal economic democracy they concur with the earlier Marxist inspired critique
in rejecting the possibility for a more emancipatory role for accounting within
present societal structures. In particular, "capture" of the agenda by powerful vested
interests is posited as the inevitable consequence of any attempt at accounting
reform. Thus Maunders (1996) fears that producers and users of environmental
accounts will inevitably focus on detailed computational methods and numerical
outcomes whilst ignoring the rich reality from which the numbers have been
abstracted. Furthermore;
"By thus either obscuring or permitting the obscuration of the fundamental
issues, the danger is that environmental accounting, whether consciously
or unconsciously can serve those whose vested interests lie in not
searching too vigorously for a sustainable ecological solution" (p. 14).
For her part Cooper (1992) asserts that;
"Accounting cannot change society, it is not on the 'outside', it is an
intricate part of the existing masculine political economy. Without a
change to society, there is no way out of this. In the present symbolic order
accountants should not attempt to account for the environment" (p. 37).
Somewhat bizarrely, the conclusions reached by critical scholars whether they
be of Marxist, deep ecologist or radical feminist persuasion echo chillingly closely
that offered by a particularly trenchant right wing critic of the social accounting
movement, Benston (1982), who simply noted that "the social responsibility of
accountants can be expressed best by their forbearing from social responsibility
accounting" (p.1 02).
Of course, one crucial difference between the position of the critical theorists
and apologists for the conventional accounting status quo is that whereas the latter
are quite happy 8 with current societal structures (and accounting's role in
perpetuating them) the former group are clearly not. Indeed, as the work of
Willmott, Puxty and Sikka (1993) and Sikka, Willmott and Puxty (1995) amongst
others indicates there is a profound desire on the part of the critical school to act as
"confronters of orthodoxy and agents of change" (1995, p. 115). However,

restricting one's activities to critique rather than actively seeking to reform practice
(albeit within the confines of the prevailing liberal economic democracy
hegemony) we would suggest poses a minimal threat to current orthodoxy. Thus
Neu and Cooper (1997) are led to observe that:
"While critical accounting scholars have illuminated the partisan
functioning of accounting, however we have been less successful in
transforming accounting (and social) practices" (p. 1).
Indeed, in a telling critique of Cooper's (1992) work, Gallhofer (1992), in
questioning the former's blunt dismissal of the potential for getting involved in
developing "alternative" environmental accountings, asks "does this not ignore the
various forces at work in the environment's destruction? Does it not even risk
complicity?" (p. 48).
More generally, Bronner (1994) in taking critical theorists severely to task for
their unwillingness to actively engage with the practicalities of the position they
espouse concludes that:
"refusing to make a practical judgement, in the name of resisting the
'domination' supposedly implicit in such a choice, is merely an abdication
of responsibility; judgement is then always exercised by others" (p. 325).
Significantly, Bronner's work appears to have caused something of a split
within the critical accounting camp, with writers such as Gallhofer and Haslam
(1995; 1997) now subscribing to the view that prescriptive intervention in
(environmental) accounting practice should be very much the concern of critical
theorists. Encouragement for a more general response from the critical school is
suggested by Wildavsky' s (1994) expressed fear that such intervention will
inevitably damage capitalism.
As Bebbington (1997) points out, the critical school has undoubtedly already
had some beneficial effect on the work of "mainstream" social and environmental
accounting research in at least providing an intellectual base against which its
proponents (amongst whom we number ourselves) may evaluate the extent to
which capture and legitimation may be taking place. However, the work of
Gallhofer and Haslam (1995; 1997) holds out the promise of more synergistic
interaction between the two groups in seeking to actively reform accounting
practice in the direction of radical change rather than mere cosmetic tinkering.
We would not seek to deny that academic involvement in issues of practical
change within the social and environmental accounting sphere does carry with it
the risk of capture by dominant interests. This risk is heightened by the fact that
traditionally social and environmental accounting research has lacked a coherent

theoretical structure to guide the effects of researchers. It is to these issues we now
turn our attention.
The Issue of Capture

Fear of capture9 of the environmental accounting agenda by dominant economic
interests is by no means simply confined to critique emanating from the radical
camp. Significantly, writers such as Power (1991; 1992; 1994) and Mouck (1995)
- who clearly acknowledge the liberating and democratising potential of green

accounting- equally are concerned to draw attention to the dangers of colonisation
and proceeduralisation inherent in its parameters being narrowly defined by the
economic and risk based language of professional accounting expertise.
Notwithstanding Wildavsky's (1994) warning concerning the pernicious
influence of environmental accounting on "the best political economy humankind
knows how to achieve" (p. 478}, professional accounting bodies throughout the
world have shown a marked willingness to become involved in the development of
theory and practice in the field. (See, for example, CICA 1993a, b; FEE 1994;
ICAEW 1995; 1997; Johnson 1993.) Overwhelmingly, the focus in these various
initiatives is -firmly fixed upon the issue of how conventional accounting systems
can be (marginally) adjusted to cope with the environmental agenda. Research
issues addressed are largely confined to studying the technical problems generated
in the search for acceptable procedures that can be applied in the context of the
recognition, measurement and disclosure of environmental assets, costs and
liabilities. In Mouck's (1995) analysis, this provides but one further illustration of
the effective colonisation of financial reporting theory by economics. Considering
erit:ironmental accounting from an exclusively technicist, economics based
perspective, Mouck argues, amounts to nothing less than an attempt to "silence
other voices" which seek to address the fundamental political and philosophical
questions concerning matters of corporate accountability, social reporting and
democracy generated by environmentalism.
An excellent illustration of the constraining effects of the capture of the
environment agenda by the narrow, economics driven perspective of "conventional"
accounting theory and practice is provided by the work of W ambsganns and Sanford
(1996). These authors are concerned that current US Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (PERC) guidelines, which state that tradeable pollution allowances
should be recorded on a cost basis in published financial statements, lead to an
inconsistency of treatment when dealing with allowances issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as compared with allowances acquired

from other companies on the open market. Quite simply, the former are acquired on
a cost free basis, and hence are omitted from financial statements, whilst the latter,
being purchased in the market place, do appear in the statements. For Wambsganns
and Sanford ( 1996) the crucial problem with this approach is that:
"With the establishment of a market mechanism for valuing pollution, the
use of pollution allowances is to alleviate externalities associated with
environmental effects. If only part of the allowances are accounted for in
the records of the utility and its financial statements, less than optimal
economic effects may result" (p. 651).

The solution they offer is a fairly straight forward one of recommending that
pollution allowances issued by the EPA be treated as "donated assets", the standard
accounting treatment for which is to value at market at the date of their receipt.
Hence uniformity of treatment is restored with the effect claimed to be that the
accounting system, "more fully illustrates the effects of sulphur dioxide emissions,
allowing the market to function more efficiently relative to the cost of pollution"
(p. 652).
Whereas Wambsganns and Sanford's (1996) attempt to confine debate over
the effects of sulphur dioxide emissions to a consideration of the accounting
niceties of valuing pollution "permits" may at first glance appear relatively
harmless, albeit a trifle dull, critiques of their work offered by Gibson (1996),
Lehman ( 1996) and Milne ( 1996) show such capture to be a far from trivial matter.
Gibson, for example, points out that the real effects of sulphur dioxide pollution are
of a human and environmental nature rather than a financial one. Furthermore,
these effects are likely to become highly skewed by "local concentrations of output
made possible through the proposed sale of pollution allowances to factories and
utilities in older or economically disadvantaged suburbs, and will thus add further
health problems to the social problems already experienced in those areas" (p.656).
Even more fundamentally, in Gibson's analysis the whole notion of treating permits
to pollute as assets is quite contradictory to the aim of pollution prevention per se in
that maintenance of the value of such assets is crucially dependent upon the
continuation of pollution practices! Should companies clean up their act, demand
for permits will fall with a consequent reduction in their market value.
For Gibson, the real problem with the economic blunt instrument approach to
combating pollution privileged in Wambsganns and Sanford's work is that it works
within the false paradigm that the environment is a part of the economy, whereas
the reverse is actually the case. Milne (1996) similarly draws attention to the partial
nature of Wambsganns and Sanford's approach operating as it does within the

narrow perspective of economic efficiency noting that:
"Preferring the [emissions trading] program over the previous or any other
approach on the grounds of efficiency does not necessarily mean it is fair,
sustainable, or morally acceptable. Making explicit these other
implications and, therefore, the values attached to them, enables a more
complete assessment of the merits of the emissions trading program, its
supporters, and its detractors" (Milne, 1996, p. 683).
Significantly, the need for a more complete assessment of fundamental

environmental issues affecting our very quality of life than is possible within the
constraints of analysis based solely on notions of economic efficiency (and related
"practical" accounting techniques) is also central to Lehman's (1996) critique with
its emphasis on the role of participative decision making at the community level in
resolving environmental matters.
The analysis presented above, although of necessity somewhat brief, appears
to provide considerable support for radical critique's contention, (whether
emanating from a socialist, deep ecology or feminist perspective) that any
intervention by the accounting function within the environmental sphere is both
prone to capture by powerful vested interests and likely to do rnore harm than good.
In particular, it effectively serves to silence "other voices" concerned with the
democratic, ecological and ethical dimensions of environmentalism. However, we
remain far from convinced that this is necessarily the case.
Avoiding Capture
Our fundamental contention is that it is possible to work towards the development
of "green" accounting systems that are emancipatory rather than restrictive in
orientation. This is despite such efforts taking place within the confines of our current
neo-pluralistic societal structures, where power whilst not being located in a single
individual or group is far from evenly distributed. The basic tenets of our position
can be simply expressed as follows 10 • The flows of information that we know as
accounting (including social and environmental accounting) reflect and construct
the society of which they are part. Different forms of accounting reflect different
distributions of influence. That is, uneven distribution of (accounting) information
can, to a considerable degree, be taken as reflecting and re-inforcing an uneven
distribution of power. Similarly, a change in such information flows can be taken as
reflecting a change in society and can further be used to re-inforce or change the
distribution of influence in society. In particular, they can be used to develop greater

levels of accountability on the part of powerful economic entities towards the myriad
of stakeholder groups who are affected by the actions they undertake.
In our view it is the development of greater levels of accountability, which in
turn provide the impetus for extensions to the fledgling participative democracy
frameworks observable even in a liberal democratic neo-pluralist society, that
provides the essential purpose of social and environmental accounting. Thus, in our
analysis "[a]ccountability is not merely a metaphysical or discursive concept, but
the practical fulcrum for making judgements concerning the democratic power of
existing institutions" (Bronner 1994, p. 336, emphasis in original).

As Gray et al., (1996) point out (p. 42), the increase in organisational
transparency brought about through more formal social and environmental
accountability will have the effects of:
• helping to socially reconstruct the organisation, as more aspects of
organisational life will be made visible and consequences of organisational
activity more transparent,
• causing "information inductance", whereby the information one is required to
report tends to influence not just the behaviour of the recipient (i.e. society) but
also the creator and transmitter of the information (i.e. company management),
and
• bringing the organisation and the results of the actions of the organisation into
closer conjunction via the transparency engendered by heightened levels of
accountability.
Essentially, the theoretical framework we are working within is one of
stakeholder accountability, where the organisation:-stakeholder relationship is a
socially grounded one which involves both responsibility and accountability 11 • The
nature of this accountability is determined by the relationship of individual
stakeholder groups with the organisation. Whilst this is an explicitly normative
stance, it does raise a number of key practical issues that have to be addressed for
the framework to be operationalised.
Clearly, the technicist approach to environmental accounting which rests upon
narrow notions of professional expertise fails to promote the organisational
transparency and accountability called for in our framework. In order to combat
professional, and managerial, capture of the environmental agenda, and to promote
wider levels of stakeholder participation (or give "other voices" the chance to
speak), there is a pressing need to re-introduce the social dimension lost in the
transition from the social accounting of the 1970's to the environmental accounting
of the 1990's. Indeed, it is significant to note here that concerns of social justice go
to the very heart of the key conceptual foundation of the environmental challenge
- that of sustainability.
The term sustainability has come to dominate the political, economic and
indeed business agendas since it was first coined in the report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development, the Brundtland Report, in 1987.
The definition of sustainability advanced in this influential document is couched in
very general terms as, development which "meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (p. 8).
Nevertheless, despite this level of generality, the explicit reference to the needs of
future generations clearly introduces a social dimension into the environmental

debate. Indeed, the social, or human, dimension addressed by the Brundtland
Commission extends beyond questions of inter-generational equity to a
consideration of intra-generational equity which introduces highly politically
sensitive issues concerning relations between the developed and developing world.
For example, in the Chairman's forward to the Brundtland Report it is noted
that:
"Many critical survival issues are related to uneven development, poverty
and population growth. They all place unprecedented pressures on the
planet's lands, waters, forests, and other natural resources, not least in the
developing countries. The downward spiral of poverty and environmental
degradation is a waste of opportunities and resources. In particular, it is a
waste of human resources. These links between poverty, inequality, and
environmental degradation formed a major theme in our analysis and
recommendations" (WCED, 1987, p. xii).
Turning to the accounting ramifications of the above analysis, it should be
quite clear that accounting for sustainability gives rise to a very different project
than the conventional, professionally inspired environmental accounting initiatives
considered in the previous section of this paper (see Gray et al., 1993). Crucially,
accounting for sustainability injects a concern for (eco) justice into the debate in
addition to the narrow (eco) efficiency notions of conventional environmental
accounting and reporting practice. For Stone (1995) the essential difference is
that:
"Eco-justice is environment-centred and life-centred not business centred
... Eco-justice questions what gets produced, when and for whom. It may
well point to the significant reduction or even elimination of production of
certain goods and services ... Eco-justice will also demand a reduction in
consumption and the material standard of living in affluent nations and a
corresponding shift and a redistribution of resources to more impoverished

nations" (p. 97).
As Owen ( 1996) notes, introducing relatively straightforward measures of the
intra-generational component of social justice, such as provision of secure
employment, can dramatically alter perceptions derived from looking at current
environmental reports in isolation as to a company's contribution towards
"sustainability". For example, at the forefront of environmental reporting in the
United Kingdom are a number of the major privatised utilities which operate in
particularly sensitive environmental areas such as water supply and energy
provision. Their "stand alone" environmental reports provide increasingly detailed

quantitative data, often in a reporting against targets format, addressing progress
made in the core areas of waste elimination, emissions reduction etc. However,
they are notably silent on the redistribution of resources from workforce to
shareholders they have engineered in recent years, with some 25% of the former
losing their jobs in order to finance increased dividend payouts (Williams and
Haslam, 1995). This process has helped contribute to a UK labour market which
Hutton (1995) terms a 30/30/40 society. That is, 30 per cent are unemployed or
economically inactive, 30 per cent in forms of employment that are structurally
insecure and only 40 per cent enjoy a secure employment status which allows them
to regard their income prospects with any degree of certainty. In such a climate of
uncertainty and short termism it is very difficult to categorise societal structure as
sustainable however successfully the objective of eco-efficiency is pursued. The
essential point here is that individual corporate entities contribute to what is
becoming an ever increasing level of intra-generational inequity and this represents
an important negative component of their overall contribution to sustainability in
the fullest sense of the term. Crucially, this "contribution" is effectively disguised
in current reporting formats where the social dimension is excluded from the
portrayal of environmental performance offered.
A concern with issues of social justice clearly lies at the heart of the critical
theorists contribution to the research literature. Therefore, it may be expected that
re-introducing the social dimension into the environmental accounting research
agenda, via an emphasis on sustainability as the key conceptual foundation of the
project, will begin to develop the potential synergistic interaction between the
critical school and more mainstream social and environmental researchers, such as
ourselves, which we referred to earlier. We see particularly fruitful avenues of
exploration in two key areas. Firstly, investigating the possibilities for
administrative reform, or the development of new accountings (Power, 1994),
which can be instrumental in heightening the level of organisational transparency
in the interests of improved accountability. Secondly, examining the efficacy of,

already visible, changing institutional arrangements designed to empower
stakeholders by instituting more participatory forms of corporate governance.
Administrative Reform
A major cause of organisational social and environmental activities being less
transparent to external constituencies than they might be lies in the fact that legal
responsibilities for action in these spheres are generally not matched by a
responsibility to report (or account for) such actions. In other words, the increase in
legislation imposing wider social and environmental obligations on companies in
recent years has not been accompanied by requirements on companies to disclose
to interested parties the extent to which they have complied with the legislation.
Therefore, an initial key role for social and environmental accounting is to develop
reporting mechanisms to fill this gap. Additionally, what are viewed as natural or
moral rights in society are continually changing and developing over time whilst
legislation tends to lag, often considerably, changes in societal expectations
concerning corporate social and environmental accountability. This gives rise to a
further role for social and environmental accounting in utilising an accountability
framework in order to develop the democratic functioning of information flows. In
this way it can act as a constant challenge to the extant positive state of responsibility
and accountability- working, principally, upon society's acceptance of moral and
natural responsibilities and rights.
As Power (1994) points out, even quite "crude" forms of social and
environmental accounting can be effective in challenging dominant rationalities
and changing the factual universe of the organisation. One example here is Gray's
(1992) suggestion of using what he terms "sustainable cost analysis" is order to
capture at least some of the effect corporate activity has on the natural environment.
Essentially this approach seeks to attach a financial (replacement) cost figure to the
natural capital expended in productive activity which is taken to represent the sum
of money the organisation would have to spend at the end of the accounting period
so as to leave the planet no worse off as a result of its activities 12 • Crucially, for
many organisations this figure would wipe out any reported profit, and hence
indicate the unsustainable nature of its operations (see, for example, Gray, 1992;
Gray et al., 1993). In similar vein, Power (1994) advocates a form of "risk pool"
accounting. Here risk pool accounts are prepared for particular natural assets
(possibly utilising an eco-balance approach) whereby flows of natural stocks are
recorded, quantified in money terms and allocated to enterprises using the asset in
question. Again, a charge would then appear in the profit and loss account with,
additionally, the enterprise's share of the stock of a polluted resource appearing in
the balance sheet as a "negative" asset.
Other suggestions for new forms of accounting that address more directly the
social dimension are those ofBirkin (1996), who begins to develop a balance sheet
approach towards accounting for ecological holism focusing on both the
stakeholder and ecosystem dimensions, and Gray et al., (1996). The latter
particularly demonstrates the conceptual complexity and practical difficulty of
grappling with accounting for sustainability in outlining a comprehensive reporting
model that comprises:

• A detailed eco-balance statement supported by life cycle assessment
(LCA). This analysis provides an overview of the organisation showing all
physical environmental inputs, pollutions, leakages and wastes together with a
specification of all outputs. LCA then tracks each of these inputs and outputs
to their source.
• A social balance statement which similarly identifies the human, community
and social inputs and outputs of the organisational system.
• A detailed policy statement explicitly identifying recognised stakeholders
and itemising the laws, codes and additional issues which govern the
organisation.
• A detailed Compliance With Standard (CWS) report addressing all aspects
of the foregoing policy statement.
• Additional descriptive analysis of remaining accountability issues
comprising statements of intention and descriptive outlines of actions
undertaken in order to flesh out the bare bones of the CWS report.
• A detailed eco-justice statement addressing the role the organisation plays in
distributing wealth both between peoples (intragenerational equity) and
generations (intergenerational equity).
• A detailed sustainable cost calculation, and
• A restatement of the financial statements to highlight social, political and
environmental costs.
Whilst clearly the practical challenges to be faced in developing new more
environmentally and socially aware accounting are enormous, the real issue is not,
as Power (1994) stresses, one of technical reform or "getting the costs right". What
is vitally important is the communicative role of accounting as a social, rather than
economic, technology (Power 1994) and a moral discourse as opposed to a mere
transmitter of information (Lehman, 1995). The overriding purpose of accounting
reform is to create new internal visibility of the workings of the organisation for,
currently largely disenfranchised, external interests and hence to link wider

constituencies of concern into the decision making process. Clearly, therefore to
achieve real social change administrative (or accounting) reform in isolation is
insufficient but must rather go hand in hand with institutional reform. In Power's
( 1992) words "new formal accounting systems would be one, albeit more visible,
part of the transformation and greening of corporate accountability structures"
(p. 497).
Institutional Reform
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the fact that technical development in the absence
of institutional reform is unlikely to be particularly effective in developing stronger
forms of social accountability than the experience of the social audit movement.
From its beginnings in the 1970s with the work of Social Audit Ltd., who sought in
the course of several highly publicised reports, to provide an external, independent
perspective on the social and environmental performance of specific organisations,
to later manifestations, such as local authority social cost analyses which attempted
to measure the costs to the community of corporate plan closure exercises, the
highly innovative analyses produced failed to draw forth any meaningful responses
from the organisations concerned. In Puxty's (1991) analysis, which draws upon
the work of Habermas, the major problem such exercises face is that they do not
represent attempts to develop a discursive dialogue. That is they are not designed to
reach an understanding through working with the organisation concerned.
Of course, it should equally be pointed out that the voluntary environmental
reporting initiatives increasingly being undertaken by companies today,
particularly those in sensitive industrial sectors, similarly appear to have little
intention of promoting discursive dialogue. Whilst it is common practice for such
reports to solicit feedback from their readers little, or no, information is
subsequently provided on what sort of feedback has been forthcoming or how it has
influenced corporate policies and reporting practice.
Fortunately, there are some signs that a more openly consultative approach
towards the development of environmental reporting practice is beginning to
emerge. For example, at a macro level, the support of both government and
employers confederations in Holland for developing green reporting initiatives has
given rise to widespread political dialogue. (See Huizing and Decker, 1992.)
Similarly, at a micro level, active dialogue with key stakeholders, which aimed to
prioritise environmental performance and reporting issues, was a key feature of
IBM's 1995 environmental report significantly entitled "consulting the

stakeholder".
Whilst worthy of note, initiatives such as that of ffiM, based on consultation
alone, are unlikely to establish the necessary degree of transparency and democracy
within the reporting process. In addition, new structures of corporate governance
are required in order to establish true accountability. Much more is promised here
from the activities of a small number of "values based" companies, which espouse
a goal beyond profitability, in the development of discursive dialogue with
stakeholder groups 13 • In developing stakeholder dialogue procedures, which seek
to provide each stakeholder with a "voice" in the organisation, companies such as

Traidcraft are adding a polyvocal citizenship perspective to that of stakeholder and
accountability perspectives (Gray et al., 1997, see also Zadek et al., 1997). In
essence what this means is that:
• stakeholders are encouraged to voice the terms of the accountability
relationship - both as they see it currently and how they would wish it to be;
• stakeholders take an active part in defining the accounting entity itself;
• the voices of the stakeholders (concerning, for example, employee and
customer satisfaction levels, environmentalists" anxieties about the
organisation etc.) provide an essential element of the basis for the social
account of the organisation.
Whilst clearly at a very early stage of development, reporting initiatives such
as that of Traidcraft suggest a fruitful research agenda in investigating ways in
which stakeholders voices may be heard and collated in order to produce reports
that are transparent and fully reflect the social and environmental accountability of
the organisation concerned.
Environmental Accounting: Success Or Failure?

It is obvious from the foregoing that we are more than a little sensitive to the power
of the critical's schools charges against environmental (and social) accounting but,
nevertheless, that we see their charges as: (i) on occasions directed only against the
GAAP- or EMS-centred aspects of the subject; (ii) generally a matter of political
judgement; or (iii) deriving from a world view in which any sort of engagement
and/or any sort of accounting is an anathema. We have tended to agree with the
charges under (i) and simply cannot agree with those under (iii). On (ii) - which
we see as the most important of the criticisms- however, there is a small matter of
evidence. It is worth, very briefly, rehearsing some of this evidence and, whilst
one's interpretation of evidence is inevitably also a matter of political judgement, it

may help us move the debate on somewhat.
At the risk of being self-indulgent, the most persuasive evidence to our mind is
by way of a personal note. As few years ago as 1989, we (the authors) had very few
colleagues with any interest in environmental accounting, found it almost
impossible to get companies or other organisations to give us the time of day and,
indeed, saw little practical likelihood of any real developments in the area in the
foreseeable future. Now we find ourselves surrounded by excellent research on an
issue which is considered by the majority of commentators to be central to
organisational and professional life. Similarly, until a year or so ago, interest in

social accounting was similarly not only rare but actively discouraged. That we
find ourselves writing for the Asia-Pacific Journal at a time when a large proportion
of academic and professional colleagues are active in exploring environmental and
social issues for accounting and finance is all the evidence we need of a significant
improvement. We certainly cannot see this as anything other than a positive
advance.
Similarly, if less parochially, environmental reporting is spreading, countries
such as Denmark and the Netherlands have environmental reporting law in place
and others (e.g. New Zealand) are following suit. The United Nations is active in
promulgating environmental and sustainability accounting and the subject is a
major agenda item for most large companies. Professional accountancy bodies are
taking the matter (reasonably) seriously and the teaching of environmental
accounting is, as far as one can tell, on the increase.
Whilst some of this activity certainly will fall foul of the critical school's
charge of technicist kitsch (see, for example, Newton and Harte, 1994) it is difficult,
indeed, to see that it all does. Certainly there are dangers in accountants forcing
environmental (and social) issues into their narrow little framework. However, for
some, the framework simply breaks under the strain of trying to force
environmental issues into it. More generally, it is now legitimate and acceptable to
debate with colleagues in practice and academe about social and environmental
issues - matters on which they simply refused to engage only a few years ago.
There is clearly a long way to go and too much optimism - even complacency -
would be the height of foolishness, but the critical school must surely recognise
that progress is being made.
Conclusions
Our concern in this paper has been to counter the critical school's rejection of the
efficacy of the social accounting movement as a vehicle of social change. Whilst
acknowledging that "capture" of the reporting agenda by powerful vested interests

is a potent threat, as evidenced by developments in "conventional" environmental
accounting which have successfully disinfected the environment of any social
connotation whatsoever, we consider such a process to be far from inevitable. Our
view is that far from being silenced, "other voices" may be given a prominent
platform in the development of social and environmental reporting.
We place our faith in the power of information on the social and environmental
ramifications of corporate activity made available in the public domain to develop
higher levels of organisational transparency, of stakeholder accountability and
participative democracy. In order for this to come about we see a pressing need to
re-introduce a social justice element in current environmental reporting initiatives.
In other words, to develop meaningful ways of truly accounting for sustainability.
Such a process, we suggest, begins to create some common ground between
radical critique and "mainstream" social and environmental accounting research.
In particular we see fruitful research avenues opening up in investigating the
potential for new accountings of social and environmental impact (administrative
reform) and examining the efficacy of newly developing institutional arrangements
designed to empower stakeholders by instituting more participatory forms of
corporate governance (institutional reform).
In sum, we throw down a challenge to the critical theorists to engage with
practice. To fail to rise to this challenge we suggest, amounts to an abdication of
responsibility and, indeed, risks complicity with the socially and environmentally
destructive forces holding sway in our world today.
Endnotes
Whilst, as we discuss below, social and environmental accounting has radical potential, the irony
that many accountants and accounting.academics consider fulfillment accountability and the
pursuit of democracy as "radical" should not escape us.
2 Neimark ( 1982) uses the term critical to describe a diverse "group of accounting scholars who
view the public accounting profession's claim to neutrality and independence with skepticism"
(p4). Writings in this area includes work informed by Marxist, Foucauldian, Habermasian,
Feminist and Deep Green analysis to name but a few.
3 For a descriptive analysis and critique of empirical work in this area see Mathews (1993) ch. 5
and Gray et al., (1996) Ch. 8.
4 In the words of Lowe and Mcinnes (1971) accounting seems intent on "doing efficiently that
which should not be done at all".
5 This can be explained by the concept of autopoesis which is so well expanded upon in Michael
Power's work. Simply, the accounting system- and accountants- can only take on board those
ideas which "code" into their existing categories of meaning. Environmental and social issues
simply will not code other than in categories of cost etc. (We are grateful to Claire Kirman of
CSEAR, Dundee, for bringing this to our attention).
6 The Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research (CSEAR) has a membership of
over 300 individuals and organisations in over 30 countries. The comparative figures at the
inception of CSEAR were 50 and 5. This is illustrative of the massive increase in active interest in
the field.
7 Behind, of course, Barnsley Football Club and their appalling record in the Premier Division.
8 Or rather, to be more precise, such extreme liberals want more of what we have -less laws, less
government, more freedom to let markets work. It seems fair to say, however, that such
commentators are broadly content with the key structural elements of western society in that they
have no desire to challenge the existence and functioning of companies, shareholdings, markets
and accounting.
9 "Capture" (related, as it is, to other notions such as colonisation) is a complex idea but in essence
refers to the appropriation of a potentially liberating or empowering mechanism by those who
currently hold power such that the liberating potential of the mechanism is removed or severely
reduced. The process is subtle. Thus the State, which ought to speak for, and protect, the demos is
frequently captured by capital to act and speak on behalf of the vested economic interest in a
society. The crux of the process is that it is not performed in obvious ways. The more subtle
manifestations of this relate to disciplines and language. Conventional accounting speaks about
accountability and the environment but does so in very narrow terms. It therefore seeks to capture
these debates and (given that accounting is principally a mechanism for supported vested
economic interest) does so on behalf of companies and capitalism. More widely, social reporting,
environmental reporting and sustainability are all under attack in various ways to ensure that any
radical movement in these concepts is removed - but done so in a way which looks benign and
by which the vested interests (say multi-national corporations) can claim (through their control of
media) to be acting in the public interest.
10 For a fuller elaboration of this argument see Gray et al ( 1996) chs. 2 and 3.
11 This variant of stakeholder theory must be distinguished from the more traditional organisation
centred form whereby the organisation (rather than society) both identifies the stakeholder group
and manages relationships with them by reference to the influence each individual group may
exert on the organisation.
12 Critical natural capital (such as the ozone layer or the rainforests) being by definition
irreplaceable and non-substitutable would have to be "included" at infinite cost.
13 Such companies are often taken to include The Body Shop, Traidcraft, Shared Earth, New
Consumer, Shared Interest and the Centre for Alternative Technology (UK), Ben and Jerry's
(US) and Earth Sanctuaries (Australia).
References
Bebbington, J. (1997). "Engagement, education and sustainability: A review essay on environmental
accounting". Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10, 3, 365-81.
Bebbington, Jan and Gray, Rob (1997). "An Account of Sustainability: Failure, Success and a
Reconceptualisation". In the proceedings of the 5th Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting
Conference, 1-9 July, Vol 1.
Bebbington, Jan and Gray, Rob (1996). "Sustainable Development and Accounting: Incentives and
Disincentives for the Adoption of Sustainability by Transnational Corporations". In International
Accounting and Reponing Issues, 1995 Review. Geneva: UNCTAD/DTCI/25.
Bebbington, Jan and Tan, John ( 1996). "Accounting for Sustainability". Chartered Accountants Journal
of New Zealand, 75, 75-76.
Bebbington, Jan and Tan, John (1997). "Accounting for Sustainability". Chartered Accountants Journal
of New Zealand, 76, 37-40.
Bebbington, Jan and Thomson, Ian ( 1996). Business Conceptions ofSustainability and the Implications
for Accountancy. London: ACCA.
Benston, G.J. ( 1982). "Accounting and corporate accountability". Accounting, Organizations and Society,
7, 87-105.
Benston, G.J. (1984). Rejoinder to "Accounting and corporate accountability: An extended comment".
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 9, 417-19.
Birkin, F. (1996). "The ecological accountant: From the cogito to thinking like a mountain". Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 1, 231-257.
Bronner, S.E. (1994). Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists. Oxford: Blackwell.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) ( 1993a). Environmental Stewardship: Management
Accountability and the Role of Chartered Accountants. Toronto: CICA.
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) (l993b). Reporting on Environmental Performance.
Toronto: CICA.
Cooper, C. (1992). "The non and nom of accounting for (M)other nature." Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 5, 3, 16-39.
Cooper, D.J. (1988). "A social analysis of corporate pollution disclosures: A comment." Advances in
Public Interest Accounting, 2, 179-186.
Dierkes, M. (1979). "Corporate social reporting in Germany: Conceptual developments and practical
experience." Accounting, Organizations and Society, 4, 87-107.
Dierkes, M. and Preston, L.E. (1977). "Corporate social accounting and reporting for the physical
environment: A critical review and implementation proposal." Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 2, 3-22.
Federation des Experts Comptab1es Europeens (1994)./nvestigation of Emerging Accounting Areas.
London: Routledge.
Gallhofer, S. (1992). "M(othering) view on 'The non and nom of accounting for (M)other nature.'"
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 5, 3, 40-51.
Gallhofer, S. and Haslam, J. (1995). Worrying about environmental auditing. Accounting Forum, 19,
205-218.
Gallhofer, S. and Haslam, J. (1997). "The direction of green accounting policy: Critical reflections."
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10, 158-174.
Gibson, K. (1996). "The problem with reporting pollution allowances: Reporting is not the problem."
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1, 655-665.
Gray, R.H. (1992). "Accounting and environmentalism: An exploration of the challenge of gently
accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability." Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 17,399-426.
Gray, R.H., Bebbington, K.J. and Walters, D. ( 1993). Accounting for the Environment. London: Paul
Chapman.
Gray, R.H., Dey, C., Owen, D.L., Evans, R. and Zadek, S. ( 1977). "Struggling with the praxis of social
accounting: Stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures." Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 10, 325-364.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Adams, C.A. (1996). Accounting and Accountability: Changes and
Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Maunders, K.T. (1987). Corporate Social Reporting: Accounting and
Accountability. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Gray, R.H., Owen, D.L. and Maunders, K.T. (1988). "Corporate social reporting: Emerging trends in
accountability and the social contract". Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 1, 1,
6-20.
Huizing, A. and Dekker, H.C. (1992). "The environmental issue on the Dutch political market."
Hutton, W. (1995). The State We're ln. London: Jonathan Cape.
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) (1995). Financial Reporting of
Environmental Liabilities: A Discussion Paper. London: ICAEW.
Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) (1997). Environmental issues in
Financial Reporting. London: ICAEW.
Johnson, L. (1993). "Research on environmental reporting". Accounting Horizons, 1, 3, 118-123.
Lehman, G. (1995). "A legitimate concern for environmental accounting". Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 6, 393-412.
Lehman, G. (1996). "Environment accounting: Pollution permits or selling the environment". Critical
Lessem, R. (1977). "Corporate social reporting in action: An evaluation of British, European and
American experience". Accounting, Organizations and Society, 2, 279-294.
Lowe, A.E. and Mcinnes, J.M (1971). "Control of social-economic organisations". Journal of
Management Studies, 8, 213-27.
Mathews, M.R. (1993). Socially Responsible Accounting. London: Chapman Hall.
Maunders, K.T. (1996). Environmental Accounting -Is it Necessarily an Oxymoron? University of

Hull, Working Paper Series, No HUSM/KT/28.
Maunders, K.T. and Burritt, R.L. (1991). "Accounting and ecological crisis". Accounting, Auditing
and Accountability Journal, 4, 3, 9-26.
Milne, M.J. (1996). "Capitalizing and appropriating society's rights to clean air: A comment
on Wambsganns and Sanford's accounting proposal". Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 7,
681-695.
Mouck, T. (1995). "Financial reporting, democracy and environmentalism: A critique of the
commodification of information". Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6, 535-553.
Neimark, Marilyn Kleinberg, ( 1992). The Hidden Dimensions ofAnnual Reports: Sixty years of social
conflict at General Motors. Markus Wiener Publishing, New York.
Neu, D. and Cooper, D.J. (1997). "Accounting interventions". Proceedings of the Fifth Interdisciplinary
Perspectives on Accounting Conference, 4. University of Manchester.

Newton, T.J. and Harte G. (1994). Green Business: Technicist Kitsch. University of Edinburgh,
Department of Business Studies, working paper 94/17.
Owen, D.L. (1996). "A critical perspective on the development of European environmental accounting
and reporting". In C. Hibbert and H. Blokdisk (Eds.), Environmental Accounting and Sustainable
Development. Amsterdam: Limperg Instituut.
Power, M. (1991). "Auditing and environmental expertise: between protest and professionalisation".
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 4, 30-42.
Power, M. (1992). "After calculation? Reflections on 'Critique of Economic Reason' by Andr~ Gorz".
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17,477-499.
Power, M. (1994). "Constructing the responsible organization's accounting and environmental
representation". In G. Feubner, L. Farmer and D. Murphy (Eds.), Environmental Law and
Ecological Responsibility: The Concept and Practice ofEcological Self Organization. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons.
Puxty, A.G. (1986). "Social accounting as immanent legitiation: A critique of a technicist ideology".
Advances in Public Interest Accounting, I, 95-ll2.
Puxty, A.G. (1991). "Social accountability and universal pragmatics". Advances in Public Interest
Accounting, 4, 35-45.
Schaltegger, S., Muller, K. and Hindrichsen, H. (1996). Corporate Environmental Accounting.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Sikka, P., Willmott, H. and Puxty, A.G. (1995). "The mountains are still there: Accounting academics
and the bearings of intellectuals". Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8, 113-140.
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, 95-llO.
Tinker, A.M., Lehman, C. and Neimark, M. (1991). "Falling down the hole in the middle of the road:
Political quietism in corporate social reporting''. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,
4, 28-54.
Ullmann, A.E. (1979). "Corporate social reporting: Political interests and conflicts in Germany".
Wambsganns, J.R. and Sanford, B. (1996). ''The problem with reporting pollution allowances". Critical
Wildavsky, A. (1994). "Accounting for the environment". Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19,
461-481.
Williams, K. and Haslam, C. (1995). "Utility cash piles that put jobs on the scrapheap". The Guardian,
13 November, p. 16.
Willmott, H., Puxty, A.G. and Sikka, P. (1993). "Losing one's reason: On the integrity of accounting
academics". Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 6, 98-ll 0.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Zadek, S., Pruzan, P. and Evans, R. (1997). Enhancing corporate social performance: the practice of
social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting. London: Earthscan.

Owen 1997

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Owen 1997

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Monash University Library]

On: 07 October 2014, At: 12:41

Green Accounting: Cosmetic

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10293574.1997.10510519

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

of the theoretical concepts employed and practical techniques analysed, particularly

extension of a system of systematically distorted communication practice that

deal with symptoms - not causes.

Finally, some concluding remarks are made.

• Environmental issues within management accounting and environmental

• Environmental issues within conventional financial statements and financial

• Environmental reporting and disclosure;

• Social accounting and reporting;

• Accounting and reporting for (un)sustainability and (un)sustainable development;

technologies and so on. It is not an extension of financial reporting - although it

popular as environmental reporting, social reporting recognises that social issues

The Critical School's Case Against the Social and

"confronters of orthodoxy and agents of change" (1995, p. 115). However,

traditionally social and environmental accounting research has lacked a coherent

The Issue of Capture

- who clearly acknowledge the liberating and democratising potential of green

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as compared with allowances acquired

economic effects may result" (p. 651).

nature of Wambsganns and Sanford's approach operating as it does within the

Significantly, the need for a more complete assessment of fundamental

distribution of influence in society. In particular, they can be used to develop greater

existing institutions" (Bronner 1994, p. 336, emphasis in original).

future generations clearly introduces a social dimension into the environmental

corresponding shift and a redistribution of resources to more impoverished

provision. Their "stand alone" environmental reports provide increasingly detailed

in the interests of improved accountability. Secondly, examining the efficacy of,

model that comprises:

currently largely disenfranchised, external interests and hence to link wider

IBM's 1995 environmental report significantly entitled "consulting the

to provide each stakeholder with a "voice" in the organisation, companies such as

Environmental Accounting: Success Or Failure?

one's interpretation of evidence is inevitably also a matter of political judgement, it

organisational and professional life. Similarly, until a year or so ago, interest in

acknowledging that "capture" of the reporting agenda by powerful vested interests

Maunders, K.T. (1996). Environmental Accounting -Is it Necessarily an Oxymoron? University of

Perspectives on Accounting Conference, 4. University of Manchester.

You might also like