Biodiversity reporting in Denmark

Dennis van Liempd · Jacob Busch

132 citations0/0 files storedAccounting Auditing & Accountability Journal

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting Accounting Theory and Financial Reporting Accounting and Financial Management

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to suggest that companies have ethical reasons to report about biodiversity issues and to investigate whether companies act on these reasons by examining the extent of biodiversity reporting in Denmark. Design/methodology/approach For the first purpose, desk research was conducted using consequentialist ethics, while for the second purpose, data were gathered from the 2009‐2011 annual reports, CSR‐type reports and homepages of 24 Danish large‐cap companies. Findings Philosophically, it is shown that biodiversity preservation and reporting is an ethical issue, even on the assumption that biodiversity does not possess intrinsic value. Empirically, it is shown that Danish companies score poorly overall, both quantitatively and qualitatively, with regards to reporting on biodiversity. Research limitations/implications Even though the importance of biodiversity can be justified on different assumptions, biodiversity reporting is under‐researched offering potential for future research on a globally important issue. Practical implications Justifying the preservation of biodiversity from an instrumental viewpoint might convince accounting audiences that are sceptical of normative ethical argumentation based on intrinsic value. The relative lack of biodiversity reporting in Denmark shows the need for the State and accounting standard setters to address this issue together with business and other stakeholders. Originality/value Few studies theorize on why there is a need for environmental reporting. Those that do are based on non‐instrumental considerations. This paper gives philosophical arguments for biodiversity reporting normally outside the scope of accounting. It emphasizes how even those who deny that biodiversity has intrinsic value are morally obliged to account for biodiversity. The argument also provides novel reasons for why thinking about discount rates should be governed by pure preference considerations. Empirically, this is only the second paper examining biodiversity reporting and the first about the Danish context.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 132 citations exist upstream.

References

2007The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review 2007The Economics of Climate Change 198611. Reasons and Persons 2002Introduction 2007Revisiting the relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: An empirical analysis 1995Corporate social and environmental reporting 2007A Review of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change 2009Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability…and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet

Cited by

2019Corporate biodiversity accounting and reporting in mega-diverse countries: An examination of indicators disclosed in sustainability reports 2018From the Big Five to the Big Four? Exploring extinction accounting for the rhinoceros 2023Is biodiversity disclosure emerging as a key topic on the agenda of institutional investors?2018The emancipatory potential of extinction accounting: Exploring current practice in integrated reports 2015Non-financial information: State of the art and research perspectives based on a bibliometric study

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.