Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal

A Blueprint towards Accounting >for> the Management of Ecosystems

Clément Feger, Laurent Mermet,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Clément Feger, Laurent Mermet, "A Blueprint towards Accounting >for> the Management of Ecosystems", Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2015-2360
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2015-2360
Downloaded on: 18 August 2017, At: 10:06 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 11 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

,"Accounts of Nature and the Nature of Accounts: Critical reflections on environmental accounting and propositions for
ecologically informed accounting", Accounting, Auditing &amp; Accountability Journal, Vol. 0 Iss ja pp. 00-00 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2017-3010">https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2017-3010</a>
,"The contested instruments of a new governance regime: accounting for nature and building markets for biodiversity
offsets", Accounting, Auditing &amp; Accountability Journal, Vol. 0 Iss ja pp. 00-00 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
AAAJ-12-2015-2336">https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2015-2336</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:425905 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 A Blueprint towards Accounting for the
Management of Ecosystems

Abstract

Purpose – This paper proposes a new ecological-issues-centered accounting research agenda,

at the crossroads of accounting research and conservation science.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Design/methodology/approach – Based on a case study of the Natural Capital Project, the

research examines the efforts and challenges of conservation practitioners regarding the use of
evaluative information systems for conservation (EISC) in complex social and ecological
contexts. It discusses why and how, to address these challenges, EISC promoters would
benefit from theoretical and empirical insights coming from accounting research.
Findings – The paper suggests that the use of new information systems centered on organized
collective action for biodiversity conservation should be regarded as a new type of accounting
for the management of ecosystems, complementary to organization-centered biodiversity
accounting and to ecosystem accounting at the national scale. A research agenda inspired by
critical accounting should be developed for EISC design and use by: (1) critically analyzing
the organizational models currently underlying the use of new calculative practices for
ecosystems; (2) developing new analytical and practical avenues on the basis of more explicit
and powerful theories adapted to collective action for conservation perimeters.
Originality/value – The paper shows the importance of combining three domains of research
and practice that are usually disconnected: (1) the design and use of innovative information
systems in biodiversity conservation research and practice; (2) accounting research; (3)
theories and conceptual models of collective action to resolve ecological challenges.

Keywords: ecological accounting, accountability, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem

services, accounting entity

Paper Type: Conceptual paper

Acknowledgments (if applicable):

The initial idea of this paper is a result of one of the authors’ being invited as a fellow by the Smith School of
Enterprise and the Environment (Oxford University). The authors are grateful to Suez Eau France and the
Association Nationale de Recherche et Technologie (ANRT) for the sustained funding of the subsequent
research. The authors would also like to express gratitude for the generous support of the Alliance Program as
well as the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions’ (Earth Institute, Columbia University) warm
welcome of one of the authors as a visiting scholar whilst writing this paper. We wish to thank the two anonymous
reviewers as well as the editors of this special issue who have helped us to substantially improve the paper.

1
 1. Introduction

1.1 Biodiversity as a new territory for organization-centered social and environmental

accounting

From the 1970s onward, part of accounting research has embarked on a risky but
visionary journey by turning its eyes to environmental issues (Richard, 2012). Since then,
social and environmental accounting (SEA) research has steadily increased in popularity
(Cullen and Whelan, 2006; Eugénio et al., 2010; Gray, 2007; Mathews, 1997, 2000; Owen,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

2008; Parker, 2005, 2011; Richard, 2012; Spence et al., 2010). This trend has been consistent
with the growing importance of environmental concerns and the sustainable development
agenda in society over this period. It reflects the many efforts by SEA researchers and
practitioners to broaden accounting’s scope and make organizations and business more
accountable for their impact on society and the natural environment (Gray, 2008, 2010; Gray,
Adams, et al., 2014; Gray et al., 1995). A wide range of environmental issues has so far been
explored by SEA (pollution, water quality, deforestation, climate change, etc.). It is only
recently though that accounting research has started to pay greater attention to biodiversity
and ecosystem conservation (Jones, 2014a, 2014b; Jones and Solomon, 2013; see also the
2013 AAAJ special issue on the topic vol.26:5), with the hope that “by accounting for
biodiversity impacts, by reporting on actions taken to enhance and protect biodiversity,
organizations themselves will be spurred on to take further and more effective action to
conserve, preserve and enhance the variety of species on Planet Earth” (Jones and Solomon,
2013, p. 670).

Accounting for biodiversity research at the organizational scale today includes essentially:
(1) original propositions for extra-financial biodiversity reporting (GRI, 2011; Jones, 2014c,
1996, 2003; Thomson, 2014) as well as critical studies of firms’ current biodiversity reporting
and corporate disclosure practices (Atkins et al., 2014; Van Liempd and Busch, 2013; Rimmel
and Jonäll, 2013); (2) propositions to integrate biodiversity, ecosystem services and natural
capital information in organizations’ management and financial accounting systems (Houdet,
2010, 2012; Houdet and Germaneau, 2014; Ionescu, 2016; Rambaud and Richard, 2015); (3)
full cost accounting methods to measure the hidden costs of organizations’ impacts on the
degradation of ecosystems (Davies, 2014; Kering, 2015; PUMA, 2010; TEEB, 2012a); (4) the
development of new ad-hoc valuation and decision-making tools to help organizations assess
their interdependencies with ecological systems and the associated risks for their operations
and supply chains (Hanson et al., 2011; Havas et al., 2014; NCC, 2016; Waage and Kester,
2015; Zhang et al., 2010a, 2010b).

While these various approaches differ from one another on multiple dimensions (i.e.
purpose and intended users, biodiversity Vs ecosystem services; monetary metrics Vs
biophysical metrics; integration in existing accounting systems Vs new decision-making tools,
etc.), they all have in common to consider existing formal organizations and business as the
central ‘accounting entities’, i.e. “the objects and activities of which the reports [will] speak”
(Kurunmaki, 1999, p. 219). Seen from such a perspective, biodiversity conservation is
essentially conceived as a problem that must be addressed by extending organizations’

2
 conventional accounting perimeters to gradually integrate new biodiversity-related
information. This would enhance the capacity of organizations to individually take into
account and manage their relations with ecological systems, and it would foster their public
accountability on their degradation.

1.2 Ecosystem accounting innovations to measure natural capital at the national

scale

On the other side of the accounting for biodiversity spectrum and at the crossroads of
national accounting, economics, statistics and ecological science, some efforts are made since
the 1980s to account for the health of ecological systems at the national, supra-national or
regional scale (Bouni, 1996; Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Edens and Hein, 2013; Hein et al.,
2015; Mäler et al., 2008; Sukhdev and Feger, 2012; TEEB, 2010; Weber, 2014a). While the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

definition, scope, metrics, quantification conventions and scientific methods of so-called

“ecosystem accounting” approaches are still widely debated (Edens and Hein, 2013, pp. 43–
44), their overall aim is to “monitor changes in ecosystem conditions and ecosystem services
over time from a spatial perspective in a way that is persistent with national accounting”
(Schröter et al., 2014, p. 540). This innovation agenda is aligned with current international
political incentives such as the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 adopted in Nagoya
in 2010 that sets the objective “to integrate biodiversity values” into national development
plans and into national accounting and reporting systems (Weber, 2014a, p. 9). It was recently
enhanced by the adoption in 2012 of the new version of the System of Environmental-
Economic Accounts “Central Framework” by the United Nation’s Statistic Commission (UN,
2014) and its complementary volume specifically dedicated to the experimentation of
ecosystem accounting (“Experimental Ecosystem Accounting” – SEEA-EEA), that seek to go
beyond simple natural resources accounting approaches (EC, 2013).

As an illustration of the field’s current diversity, contributions include: (1) the Wealth
Assessment and Ecosystem Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) program hosted by the
World Bank since 2010, that develops monetary valuation approaches of ecosystem services
and supports pilot projects in multiple countries (WAVES, 2014); (2) the Ecosystem-Capital
Accounts developed by the European Environmental Agency at the European scale that
privileges biophysical accounts and land use data (Weber, 2011, 2007); (3) the articulation of
mixed valuation methodologies into an original accounting model proposed by the
Convention Biological Diversity (Weber, 2014a); (4) the Joint Perspective Model developed
by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology that introduces a muti-perspective accounting
approach (economic, human an cultural, physical and biological, etc.) (BoM, 2013). Other
propositions related to this field have been developed by public agencies, individual research
teams, or environmental think tanks and focus on specific countries, regions, ecological
compartments or economic sectors (Borucke et al., 2013; Campbell and Tilley, 2014;
Eurostat, 2002; Gundimeda et al., 2007; Remme et al., 2014; Weber, 2014b; Zhang et al.,
2007).

Despite this variety, all national ecosystem accounting approaches essentially share the
ambition to introduce standard methods to aggregate spatial, biophysical and economic
information on ecological systems and their interaction with human activities. They produce
totalizing figures, or what we could refer to as ‘macro-ecological balance-sheets’, of the
health, stocks, flows and value of natural capital over time. Their common feature is thus to
consider states and other already constituted political, territorial and socio-economic entities
3
 as the main users of such accounting information, and to regard their spatial boundaries as the
relevant accounting for biodiversity perimeters. Seen from this perspective, biodiversity
conservation is essentially a matter of extending and/or complementing states’ conventional
national accounting systems in order to ultimately adjust or redirect public authorities’ agency
and their economic and regulatory instruments in favor of a better governance of natural
capital.

1.3 Accounting for the management of ecosystems: contributing to an emerging third front
in accounting for biodiversity research

Hence, most of accounting for biodiversity research today is centered on already existing
accounting entities, either organizational or national. However, none of these two kinds of
accounting perimeters are by themselves fit to effectively address conservation issues and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

operationalize the collective management of ecological systems. On one side, continuing

improvement of the accounting of organizations, in particular of business, is a necessary but
not a sufficient condition for the long-term protection of the biosphere. Most ecological
systems are such that their conservation, restoration or sustainable management depends on
more than just one organization. As a result, even an ambitious and relevant SEA scheme for
a company can rarely suffice to inform and organize our collective accountability for a given
ecological system. On the other side, we are indeed in great need of complex information
systems able to produce macro-representations and to account for the status, use and
cumulated degradation of ecological systems over time on a given spatially defined entity –
including at the planetary scale. However, this will remain a vain effort that cannot “support
the generalization of ecological management” as Weber (2014a, p. 18) hopes it would, if it is
not met with the ability to assign responsibilities and hold organizations and economic sectors
accountable for their specific (positive or negative) roles in ecological degradations at a more
disaggregated level.

The challenges of articulating organizational entities’ ecological performances accounts

developed at the micro level with accounts of the sustainability of Earth’s life support system
at a macro scale have been debated in previous SEA works, through the critique of prevalent
corporate sustainability reporting and management accounting frameworks and practices and
through the proposition of new approaches to organizations’ environmental accounts
development (Gray, 1992; Milne, 2007, 1991, 1996; Milne et al., 2009; Milne and Gray,
2013). To make substantial progress towards such an articulation, we believe that in addition
to efforts to integrate biodiversity in business accounting systems and to the extension of
national accounting systems to natural capital, another layer of stand-alone accounting
innovation is needed, centered on accounting entities that correspond to the organized
management of specific ecosystems or ecological issues (Feger, 2016).

Part of SEA research has already started to point to the “challenge offered by the
possibilities of wider entity accounts” and to explore new ways of creating change beyond
direct action on organizations and business, and through the study and design of “new
accounts” (Gray, Brennan, et al., 2014). This orientation appears as particularly relevant for
an emerging strand of accounting for biodiversity research where new accounting entities –
composed of one or more organizations – are increasingly being conceptualized and studied: a
national government responsible for the management of mangroves (Siddiqui, 2013); regional
public authorities in charge of local habitats and fauna (Raar, 2014); forest certification
schemes (Borsato et al., 2014; Elad, 2014) and biodiversity offsets mechanisms (Cuckston,
2013; Tregidga, 2013); a governance and funding program for forest management (Khan,
4
 2014); a unsustainably managed water catchment and a group of irrigators (Saravanamuthu
and Lehman, 2013). The work of Dey and Russell (2014, p. 249) on the management of river
Garry is particularly illustrative of this shift towards “a more system-level conceptualisation
of the accounting entities”. The authors focus on a perimeter comprised of a river, its
surrounding catchments and the organizations that operate and/or impact them. They extend
the scope and reformulate the question of accountability, not limited to business
accountability, but rather gradually understood as the various relationships and dynamics by
which people and multiple organizations give, receive, demand and exchange various forms
of accounts (rule-enforcing compliance accounts, corporate disclosure accounts, ‘external
accounts’) related to a given ecological issue.

A small part of accounting for biodiversity studies is thus somehow already leading the
way towards a further extension of the SEA’s research agenda, beyond its business and
organization-centered dominant focus. Encouraged by these researches, this paper seeks to
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

contribute to ecological-issues-centered or ecological-system-centered accounting, by

proposing the more systematic development of what we refer to as ‘Accounting for the
management of ecosystems’ (AfME), where accounting frameworks and methods are
centered not on given organizations or nations, but on given ecological issues and their
effective long-term collective management. Ultimately, we believe that such accounting
systems could play a role that neither organization-centered accounting nor national natural
capital accounting can play, i.e. gradually equip emerging systems of accountabilities between
organizations that share the responsibility for managing specific ecosystems or ecological
issues.

In the following sections, the paper will cover what we consider to be the main steps for
further development of such ecosystem-issue-centered accounting systems: (1) centering part
of accounting research on the emerging perimeters of organized action for ecological systems
conservation and on innovative information systems developed by conservation practitioners;
(2) establishing new collaborations between accounting researchers and evaluative
information systems designers and users in the field of conservation; (3) recognizing the
profound similarities between issues raised by the design and use of such evaluative
information systems and issues raised by the design and use of accounting systems in the
context of the management of firms and organizations, which will we do here based on a
specific case example; (4) pointing at specific challenges and areas of collaboration where
evaluative information systems designers in the field of conservation could benefit from
knowledge and experience accumulated by critical and SEA accounting research and debates;
(5) studying, criticizing and enriching the connections between the design and use of
evaluative information systems for conservation with theoretical frameworks specifically
well-adapted to study the institutional, political and organizational dimensions of organized
action for biodiversity in emerging perimeters.

2. Centring accounting on organized action for ecological systems conservation

Ecological system conservation issues are generally characterized by the interplay of

multiple managers and stakeholders who, intentionally or not, have positive or negative
effects on the natural environment and act in a fragmented, divisive, competitive and often
adversarial way. The absence of an organizational “centre” or of what could be referred to as
a “unity of agency” (Mermet et al., 2013) requires that we focus on the very serious agency
problems that underlie most ecological issues – who has the capacity to act, with whom and in

5
 what form of coordination, on what object and in what perimeter, what activities does that
entail? Therefore, from the perspective of conservation scientists and practitioners, acting for
biodiversity conservation and more generally for a sound management of ecological systems
is not so much a matter of conducting change in well-bounded and formally constituted
organizations. It consists rather in designing, implementing and managing various forms of
collective organized action about specific ecological issues. As we use the expression
“organized action”, we refer to Crozier and Friedberg’s definition as “the process through
which the strategic interactions among a set of actors placed in a given field of action and
mutually dependent for the solution of some common ‘problem’ are stabilized and structured”
(Crozier and Friedberg, 1995, p. 75). In the broadest possible terms, the question we are
addressing in this paper can be expressed this way: what accounting approaches should equip
organized collective action to sustainably manage ecosystems?

The question does not point to a lack of initiatives dealing with ecosystem management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

issues: there exists a significant body of literature in social sciences or using interdisciplinary
approaches to understand the challenges of collective action for conservation (Callicott et al.,
1999; Kareiva and Marvier, 2012; Mascia et al., 2003; Mermet et al., 2013; Scoones, 1999;
Soulé, 1985). Neither does the question refer to a lack of efforts to develop ambitious
evaluative information systems for conservation (EISC). Quite the contrary, in their efforts to
tackle the challenges associated with the task of guiding action for biodiversity conservation,
researchers and field practitioners have been developing and mobilizing an increasing number
of new calculative practices to explore, assess and monitor multiple aspects of ecological
systems. To mention just a few examples, ecological indicators informing on the level of fish
stocks or the quality of a forest cover (Heink and Kowarik, 2010); performance metrics to
measure the costs of ecosystem restoration and maintenance (Vaissière et al., 2013); Red Lists
of threatened species useful to establish conservation priorities (Young et al., 2014);
biophysical assessments and economic valuations of the benefits of ecosystems to human
well-being (ecosystem services) (Kareiva et al., 2011; MEA, 2005). Overall, innumerable
EISC centered on ecological entities (a bird population, an ecological corridor, a system of
wetlands, etc.) are being developed for conservation action. However, they have only mixed
results to show as they raise a whole set of difficulties hindering their implementation or
limiting their effectiveness (Dale and Beyeler, 2001; Jørgensen et al., 2013; Müller and
Burkhard, 2012; Niemeijer and de Groot, 2008; Rametsteiner et al., 2011; Rapport and
Hildén, 2013; Turnhout et al., 2007).

To understand and deal with these difficulties, our proposition is to consider evaluative
information systems for conservation (EISC) as accounting systems for the management of
biodiversity conservation action. As we shall elaborate, our reason for this proposition is
twofold. (1) One of the main weaknesses of such information systems is that they often
remain disconnected from lasting and effective collective decision and action for ecosystem
conservation; we consider one of the fundamental reasons for this is their often embryonic or
problematic connection to organized action and to the creation of new effective
accountabilities around ecological issues. (2) By contrast, such a connection between
information systems, organization, institution and action is the strong point, the raison d’être
of accounting research and practice (Chapman et al., 2009b). Therefore, our working
hypothesis is that by rethinking evaluative information systems for conservation (EISC) as
accounting systems for the management of ecosystems, one may transfer useful conceptual
and methodological resources from accounting research to the conservation field, and more
strongly connect the design and use of EISC with appropriate and explicitly debatable
conceptions/theories of organized conservation action.

6
 3. Establishing new collaborations between accounting research and EISC
designers and users

From the point of view of conservation science, our hypothesis stands in a relative
academic vacuum. A recent systematic review of research projects by the French Biodiversity
Research Foundation (Chaveriat et al., 2011) shows that collaborations of conservation
science with management and organization studies are very limited comparatively to other
social science disciplines, and almost entirely absent with accounting as an academic field.
There are good reasons behind this limited connection between conservation and accounting.
Firstly, they tend to focus on quite separate terrains, and on very different action perspectives
(respectively: civil society advocacy and public policy, versus the management of mostly
private organizations), so that there has been little incentive to connect. Secondly, direct
connection, i.e. applying methods directly from accounting to EISC, or trying to adapt them
without deep theoretical reconsideration, is bound to prove disappointing for one fundamental
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

reason: current accounting methods are designed to build information systems for, and fill the
organizational needs of, organizations (companies, public administrations) that are deeply
different from the organized action systems required to resolve ecological issues and conserve
ecosystems. As this gap cannot be bridged directly by simple transfers and adaptation of
methods (from accounting to conservation, nor from EISC to conventional accounting),
significant new theoretical resources must be introduced to create the new connections we
believe are needed, and new collaborations need to be established between accounting
researchers and EISC designers and users in the conservation field.

Let us somewhat rephrase the question such resources should help to address: what
accounting principles could guide the design and use of EISC in a way that would be relevant
for organized action systems capable of adequately tackling conservation issues? The heart of
our argument here will be that two bodies of literature and theory should be mobilized and
combined to build the required new connections: (1) critical accounting research (others may
refer to this stream of research as interdisciplinary, interpretive or alternative accounting
research; for further discussion, see for instance Ahrens et al., 2008; Armstrong, 2008; Baxter
et al., 2008; Broadbent and Laughlin, 2013; Parker, 2008; Roslender and Dillard, 2003), that
has allowed to gradually expand the boundaries of reasoning about accounting systems until it
becomes firmly articulated with reasoning about organized action (Chapman et al., 2009a);
(2) the set of different but complementary theories that are put forward to account for the
challenges and efforts of organized action for biodiversity and their specific accountability
issues (and more generally, dealing with the ecological crisis). In brief, the crux of our
argument is that combining the knowledge accumulated by decades of critical accounting
research (Baxter and Fong Chua, 2003; Chapman et al., 2009a; Naro, 2010) with theoretical
resources specifically fit to understand the organizational, institutional and political
dimensions of ecological issues, could bring decisive new insights to the conservation
community in its efforts to design and use calculative practices for the collective management
of ecological systems. Reciprocally, doing so could connect SEA researchers with a clear
agenda of work already centered on ecological entities and based on a strong and explicit
normative orientation in favor of ecosystem conservation.

By choosing this path, we are confident that rich cross-fertilizations would arise both for
accounting academics and conservation researchers and practitioners. Accounting research
could bring decisive contributions to the conservation community in their efforts to better
organize the collective management of ecosystems through the development and use of
innovative information systems. The current state of the art of EISC still leaves unexplored a

7
 plethora of organizational, institutional and political issues related to their design and use. By
considering EISC as essentially falling under the realm of Accounting for the management of
ecosystems, and while keeping in mind the teachings of critical accounting and SEA,
conservation practitioners and accounting researchers can collaborate to investigate, untangle
and acquire more leverage to act on these largely unresolved issues.

Conversely, what would such an agenda bring to accounting research? Some authors in
SEA research (Allen, 2014; Bebbington and Larrinaga, 2014; Brown and Dillard, 2013; Gray,
Brennan, et al., 2014; Spence et al., 2010) as well as in the wider critical accounting research
community (Ahrens et al., 2008; Armstrong, 2008; Baxter et al., 2008; Hopwood, 2007;
Parker, 2008) have recently been entering a period of self-doubt on the identity and the
orientation of their field and have called for the emergence of “something that works”
(Quattrone, 2009, p. 622). By establishing strong collaborations with the conservation
community, accounting researchers can be sure to find colleagues who are not only interested
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

in deconstructing current practices and information systems, but have in fact a strong desire to
analyze, criticize, invent, design and construct new accounting entities and accountability
systems. To Chapman et al.’s (2009b, p. 21) claim that “accounting is too important to be
studied only by accountants!”, we will add that evaluative information systems for
conservation (EISC) are too serious to be studied only by ecologists and economists, and
could greatly benefit from the contributions of accountants!

4. The Natural Capital Project toolkit: an example of EISC striving to become an

operational accounting system adopted by ecosystem managers

As a case example, we will focus on the EISC developed by the Natural Capital Project
(NCP) and specifically designed to be used in a great variety of multi-stakeholders decision-
making and organized action contexts. These EISC are illustrative of the larger set of so-
called ecosystem services assessment tools, which have been promoted in the past ten years
by various conservation research organizations (Bagstad et al., 2013; Birch et al., 2014;
Kareiva et al., 2011; Peh et al., 2013). The Natural Capital Project (NCP) was formed in 2006
under the premise that better information on biodiversity and ecosystem services can be used
to inform decisions and improve both human well-being and ecosystem conditions (Kareiva et
al., 2011). Since its creation, the NCP has been working on its main open-source toolbox
called “InVEST” (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs), as well as on
other more specialized tools or complementary modules such as OPAL (Offset Portfolio
Analyzer and Locator) or RIOS (Resource Investment Optimization System). Today, InVEST
integrates 17 models that analyze different aspects of marine and terrestrial ecosystems. These
models use ecological production functions to estimate how the intensity of human activities,
climate change and the quality of ecological functioning can change the local provision of
ecosystem services (Ibid). It also proposes methods to assess and make visible the various
trade-offs and synergies among them (e.g. the trade-off between carbon storage and water
quality in forest management) (Chisholm, 2010; Onaindia et al., 2013). InVEST can produce
maps, quantitative biophysical outputs and in some cases monetary estimates of the provision
of multiple ecosystem services on a landscape. In the designers’ own words, these evaluative
information systems should enable scientists and decision-makers to move “from abstract,
conceptual arguments about the importance of ecosystem services to specific quantification of
the level, value and spatial distribution of ecosystem service benefits” (McKenzie et al., 2011,
p. 339).

8
 One of the core hypotheses of the NCP is that “in principle, putting [ecosystem services]
information in the hands of decision-makers should lead to improved landscape planning and
management” (Polasky et al., 2011, p. 260) and result in more sound and efficient ecosystem
conservation (Daily et al., 2009, 2011; Tallis and Polasky, 2009). Today, “numerous efforts
are underway to make the concept of ecosystem services operational and linked to decision-
making” (Ruckelshaus et al., 2015, p. 11). The InVEST methodology has by now been
applied, tested and refined in more than 20 decision contexts around the world including
spatial planning, development impacts and permitting, adaptation to climate change,
ecological restoration, etc. (Arkema et al., 2013; Bhagabati et al., 2012; Cabral et al., 2016;
Feger et al., 2015; Goldstein et al., 2012; Guerry et al., 2012; Nelson et al., 2009; Rosenthal et
al., 2014; Ruckelshaus et al., 2015).

To further develop one specific example, we will refer to a recent application of InVEST
by the NCP that we briefly describe here. Since 2008 along the West coast of Vancouver
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Island in British Columbia, diverse stakeholders and decision-makers (federal, provincial and
local governments representatives, First Nations groups, fishermen, extractive industries,
companies from the tourism sector, etc.) have participated in a marine spatial planning
process led by the West Coast Aquatic Management Board (WCA) (Guerry et al., 2012). The
initial vision was to ultimately “manage resources for the benefit of current and future
generations of people and the natural systems on which they depend” (Ibid, p. 115). This
requires to balance and organize a mix of activities and ecosystem uses that are of different
values to the different stakeholders (McKenzie et al., 2014). They include “existing
extractive, industrial and commercial uses, traditional First Nations subsistence and
ceremonial uses, recreation and tourism and emerging ocean uses such as the extraction of
wave energy” (Guerry et al, 2012, p. 115). The WCA benefited from the help of NCP
scientists whose role was mainly to integrate ecosystem services modelling in the decision-
making and planning process in order to “(1) assess the suitability of regions for different
activities; (2) assess how alternative management plans might affect a range of ecosystem
services; and (3) identify the marine-use conflicts likely to arise from alternative spatial
plans” (Bernhardt, et al., 2012). The different types of evaluative ecological and economic
information produced (vulnerability of the shoreline to erosion and flooding, shellfish
aquaculture economic revenues, water quality impacts of touristic float homes, etc.) as well as
local and traditional knowledge were used for the development of different planning scenarios
and as a support to collective negotiations. In addition to the modelling work, this project
involved extensive stakeholders interviews and iterative group meetings during two years
(Bernhardt, et al., 2012; Guerry et al., 2012; McKenzie et al., 2014).

Overall, this NCP case study is particularly illustrative of the variety of challenges that
EISC designers and users have to deal with in real-word contexts. It shows how the InVEST
models and the other ad-hoc evaluative information produced in Vancouver Island have been
used to guide collective decision-making and organize action in an emerging perimeter
centered on a marine ecological entity and involving multiple stakeholders with
heterogeneous interests and needs. In the light of this Natural Capital Project example, the
design and use of EISC in such emerging perimeters is comparable to some extent to issues of
design and use of conventional management accounting tools in business and other formal
organizational perimeters. Despite the fact that they are designed to be centered on ecological
issues, to be used in organized action perimeters involving multiple stakeholders, and to
mobilize very heterogeneous sets of metrics, EISC like the Natural Capital Project tools are
equivalent to conventional management accounting systems in that they both aim at
supporting planning and control activities, elaborating strategies, informing decisions,

9
 rationally managing resources, improving the management of performances, assessing and
comparing overall and individual results, etc. Just as management accounting, EISC could
well be defined as “a formal mechanism for gathering and communicating data for the ends of
aiding and coordinating collective decisions in light of the overall goals or objectives of an
organization” (Horngren and Sundem, 1990, p. 4, cited by Macintosh and Quattrone, 2010, p.
5), the challenge being however that the organizations in question differ in many ways in their
goals, their functioning and their perimeters and are still to a large extent in the course of
being invented, negotiated and defined (see section 6.). In other words, we can look at EISC
as ‘proto-accounting systems’, that share their calculative nature and their ambition to inform
(inter-)organizational accountabilities, but have not yet reached the level of adoption,
commitment, legitimacy, durability and systematicity of organization-level or national-level
accounting systems.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

5. EISC promoters are identifying important issues that could benefit from
accounting research

The Natural Capital Project, and more generally the ecosystem services community, has
recently started looking back, to take stock and assess whether and how the production and
communication of new information on the value and health of ecosystems in multiple contexts
has so far been used and has succeeded or failed to influence decision-making and to improve
biodiversity protection (Albert et al., 2014; Berghöfer et al., 2015, 2016; Booth et al., 2012;
Christie et al., 2012; Cimon-Morin et al., 2013; Laurans et al., 2013; MacDonald et al., 2014;
McKenzie et al., 2014; Posner, McKenzie, et al., 2016; Posner, Verutes, et al., 2016; Primmer
and Furman, 2012; Rosenthal et al., 2014; Ruckelshaus et al., 2015). Yet, as Ruckleshaus et
al. (2015, p. 12) recently claimed, “the promise that BES [Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services] assessments will change policy, management or practice for public or private sector
is not yet proven”. EISC designers and users indeed raise persistent questions, which illustrate
the kind of difficulties that they face in real-world decision-making and collective organized
action contexts.

Although conservation practitioners most often treat these questions as ‘science-policy

interface’ or economic issues, we believe that they are essentially accounting issues centered
on emerging and transversal perimeters rather than conventional organizational perimeters,
and that they would benefit from being treated as such. For each of the four persistent
questions that we have synthetized in this section, we can point to at least one related
discussion area or research orientation developed by accounting research, on which new
collaborations between EISC designers and accounting researchers could be developed. EISC
designers could thus greatly benefit from the literature, knowledge and experience
accumulated by decades of SEA and critical accounting research.

(1) What level of complexity and what quantity of information should be communicated
to whom, and how, to influence decision-making and coordinate actions among multiple
stakeholders? The ecological science behind the understanding of ecosystem services
interactions and evolution is complex. However, making it count requires finding the most
adequate ways to interpret, format and deliver new information, so that managers, decision-
makers and field practitioners who are not experts can make use of it in practice. This implies
choosing the types of maps, indicators or temporal and geographical scales that are the most
relevant to a given decision-making context, and organizing their communication. For
instance, Ruckelshaus et al. (2015, p. 18) show how on Vancouver Island, “even simple
average annual or ranked outputs from biodiversity and ecosystem services models can help
10
 open discussions about what are often unfamiliar issues and ways to frame policy or
management objectives”.

This question appears closely related to issues discussed in the large body of literature
studying how the design and the roles of management accounting and control systems vary
depending on the organizational context of their use and one’s understanding of it (Bhimani,
2006; Chapman et al., 2008; Hopper et al., 2007; Macintosh and Quattrone, 2010). To give
only one example, Macintosh and Quattrone (2010, p. 331) propose to adapt the design and
use of management accounting systems to their organizational contexts depending on the
existing level of definition of organizational objectives and the availability of means for
action. They distinguish between management accounting systems designed to produce ready-
made answers or decisions and fit for contexts of high certainty (“answer machines”), those
designed and used for dialogue and argumentation among managers (“ammunition
machines”), those useful for exploration, learning and the generation of new ideas (“learning
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

machine”) and those used as ex-post justifications of actions and decisions (“rationalization
machines”). Approaches inspired by such results would be well suited to EISC promoters in
their efforts to adapt their tools to specific and heterogeneous collective action contexts for
conservation.

(2) How do stakeholders and decision-makers really use the information provided in
practice, and at what stage of a given management and decision-making process? How to
make sure that these uses finally contribute to expected changes and decisions favorable to
ecological systems? In an attempt to elucidate these issues, McKenzie et al. (2014) for
instance distinguish between “conceptual”, “instrumental” and “strategic” uses of ecosystem
services knowledge in three different InVEST case studies (Belize, Vancouver Island,
Hawaii). The authors show how these uses vary across the policy or planning process. In the
Vancouver Island case study, conceptual use implied identifying unanticipated consequences
of salmon aquaculture and tourism development on shellfish culture, due to their indirect role
in the degradation of water quality. Instrumental use involved using coastal protection models
to inform where the development of economic activities should be located in such a way that
it minimizes ecological risks on coastal ecosystems. First Nations groups used some
information produced by the tools in a strategic way to speak in favor of their preferred
planning option.

Just as EISC users increasingly investigate how the information they provide is really used
by stakeholders and decision-makers beyond their a priori expected effects, the critical
accounting research agenda was founded on a similar ambition to study empirically how
accounting is used in practice inside organizations beyond strongly held functionalist beliefs
(Ahrens, 2009; Ahrens and Chapman, 2007; Hopwood, 1976). The SEA literature as well is
structured around empirical studies. Several papers for instance describe how managers have
dealt in practice with the introduction of socio-environmental accounting innovations within
an organization and discuss why it often did not lead to the expected organizational and socio-
environmental changes (Bebbington and Gray, 2001; Frame and Cavanagh, 2009; Herbohn,
2005; Larrinaga-Gonzalez et al., 2001; Larrinaga-Gonzalez and Bebbington, 2001). In their
efforts to increase their reflexivity on the real uses and effects of their tools, EISC promoters
could well benefit from accounting researchers’ experience on the study of accounting
systems/information adoption and use in practice in complex organizational settings.

(3) What types of metrics and valuation methods are legitimate and relevant for decision-
makers and stakeholders? Do they represent well the types of values that stakeholders attach

11
 to ecosystems? What are the consequences of using a given valuation approach on the
organization of action and the relationships between stakeholders? Assigning monetary value
estimates to ecosystem services has long been regarded as a crucial element to influence
decision-making and ecosystem management (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Jones-Walters and
Mulder, 2009; TEEB, 2010; Turner et al., 2003; Turner and Daily, 2008). Yet, the usefulness
and centrality of such metrics in real-world contexts have been increasingly challenged
(Laurans et al., 2013; Mermet et al., 2014, pp. 23–54). In addition, many questions are still
unresolved regarding the ability of biophysical or economic metrics to represent appropriately
the diversity of worldviews associated with biodiversity (Chan et al., 2012; Kallis et al.,
2013). On Vancouver Island, economic interests had to be weighed against incommensurable
aesthetic or cultural values (Guerry et al., 2012). First Nations groups’ priority for instance
was to secure the ecological protection and the public access to specific coastal locations that
have an important spiritual value. Specific metrics were developed with them to address this
demand. Eventually, “ecosystem-service outputs were useful in very different currencies:
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

from the net present value ($) of shellfish harvested, to the spatial extent of recreational float-
homes (m2), to concentration (g/m3) of faecal coliform bacteria in the water (Guerry et al.,
2012). Our partners did not want to express these values in one metric (e.g., $)” (Ruckelshaus
et al., 2015, p. 19).

Discussions on the choices and consequences of valuation methods in accounting history

as well as in the introduction of new accounting systems is a key component of critical and
socio-environmental accounting studies. In his work Miller (2001) for instance shows how the
introduction of standard costing as well as discounting methods in investment evaluation in
the early 20th century have profoundly transformed firms’ organizational processes, factories’
production spaces and accountability relationships between managers and employees. In SEA
research, debates on the metrics to be used in accounting innovations are often connected to
the quest for new languages and for new ontological foundations of accounting systems,
distinct from “the bizarre and tortured foundations of financial accounting” (Gray, 2013, p.
459) and adapted to the unique nature of socio-ecological issues (Birkin, 1996, 2000, 2003;
Birkin et al., 2005; Cooper, 1992; Everett, 2004; Kaghan, 2004). Propositions are also made
on ways to better integrate pluralistic representations of socio-environmental issues in
accounting/information system design (Blackburn et al., 2014; Brown et al., 2005; Dillard and
Yuthas, 2013). Such orientations in accounting research could be the basis of new
collaborations with EISC designers, as they strive to further investigate the long-term
practical and philosophical implications of their metrics and valuation choices, and as they
look for EISC design methods able to articulate a plurality of worldviews and relationships to
the natural environment.

(4) What are the roles of EISC promoters at the different stages of a given decision-
making and management process, and how should they articulate their actions with other
stakeholders’ roles? This pertains to the level of implication that EISC designers and users
should have in influencing decision and action in a way favorable to conservation. Should
they just be neutral information and science providers or, on the contrary, should they actively
engage in creating change, for instance by helping other stakeholders to negotiate ambitious
ecological objectives? In the Vancouver Island example, the authors point out how iterative
meetings organized by the NCP scientists helped to articulate ecosystem services knowledge
with other forms of local knowledge and values. They show that this method and their
personal engagement facilitated the overall decision-making process, as “the conversations
identified locals’ values and visions for the future of their open spaces”(McKenzie et al.,
2014, p. 8).

12
 This question appears as closely related to issues raised by the SEA literature on the roles
to be played by accountants in the conduct of organizational and environmental changes.
Some discussions concern how conventional accountants could (or could not) be potential
vectors of socio-environmental change in their organizations (Deegan, 2013; Gray et al.,
1995). Other authors argue that SEA researchers themselves are to play such a role, by
promoting SEA innovations and supporting organizations’ managers/employees in their
experimentation (Ball, 2007; Ball and Craig, 2010), or by facilitating dialogic participatory
processes where various constituencies belonging to the civic sphere are collectively involved
in the design of socio-environmental accounting systems and in standard setting (Brown,
2009; Brown et al., 2015; Brown and Dillard, 2013, 2015). The SEA literature has also
underlined the counter-hegemonic and alternative roles that can be played by ‘external
accounts’ developed by social activists in socio-environmental conflict arenas
(Georgakopoulos and Thomson, 2008; Thomson et al., 2015). These reflections and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

propositions could be of great interest to EISC promoters who also wish to play an active role
in the change process by the development and use of their accounts in emerging perimeters.

6. Investigating the organizational, institutional and political dimensions of EISC

design and use

As their reflections show, EISC promoters increasingly realize that the challenges that
they face are not only due to the technical, scientific and calculative dimensions of EISC, but
to their social, organizational and institutional nature. EISC essentially consist in the use of
accounting systems in organizational and institutional settings. Under this premise, it is not
only worth turning to accounting research to develop overlapping areas of discussion and
collaboration with EISC designers, but also to start developing a research agenda applied to
EISC that would be directly inspired by the one developed by critical accounting.

Critical accounting has put the study of accounting as a social and organizational
phenomenon at the center of its research agenda for the past 40 years (Chapman et al.,
2009b). Moving away from a purely technical and functionalist understanding of accounting
tools and challenging economics as being the unique theoretical foundation of accounting
research and practice (Baxter and Fong Chua, 2003; Broadbent and Laughlin, 2013;
Roslender and Dillard, 2003), the critical accounting research agenda has aimed from its very
beginning at studying “the diversity of those organizational linkages which ground accounting
and other information and control systems into the on-going processes of organizational life”
(Hopwood, 1983, p. 297). As Chapman et al. (2009b) show, critical accounting research has
finally led to regard accounting as more than a simple mirror of organizational and
institutional reality. Instead, accounting, organizations and institutions “should be viewed as
fundamentally interrelated and interdependent, […] the links among them should be viewed
as mutually constitutive” (Ibid, p. 1). In the light of this perspective and its core intuitions,
one could thus claim that to think of, to analyze, to define, to design or to use accounting
systems is always simultaneously conceiving, analyzing, defining and establishing the
accountability and organized action systems of which they are a fundamental part (Roberts,
1991; Roberts and Scapens, 1985). The profound connections between accounting,
organizations and institutions have now been considerably documented by multiple empirical
studies on accounting in practice (Ahrens, 2009; Ahrens and Chapman, 2006, 2007) and by
the mobilization of a large spectrum of theoretical frameworks, not inherent to the accounting
discipline, but coming rather from management, sociology of organizations, political science,

13
 philosophy, ethics, etc. (Baxter and Fong Chua, 2003; Covaleski and Aiken, 1986; Macintosh
and Quattrone, 2010; Malmi and Granlund, 2009; Quattrone, 2009).

To further develop Accounting for the management of ecosystems, a similar approach

could and should be adopted to gradually equip the collective discussion on the intimate
connections between EISC on the one side, and the organizational, political and institutional
dimensions of their use on the other side. As we have seen, EISC designers and users – that
we might as well call ‘conservation accountants’ – have to deal with organizational issues that
are of a significantly different nature than those encountered by conventional management
accountants and that occur in accounting perimeters that are still largely ‘in the making’. Just
as the adoption of new conventional accounting techniques and practices leads to profound
organizational transformations within firms (Ahrens and Chapman, 2007; Busco and
Quattrone, 2015; Macintosh and Quattrone, 2010; Miller, 2001; Miller, P, 1992; Miller and
O’Leary, 1987), new accounting for ecosystems tools and activities can have profound
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

consequences on the collective organized action for conservation settings of which they are
part and that they contribute to materialize.

Following the road taken decades ago by critical accounting researchers, the priority
would be to first analyze, critique and then enrich the vision of the organizational,
institutional and political realities of which conservation accountants and their accounts are
part, and which their mission is to serve. One could first be tempted to look out for theories
coming directly from the domains of management, sociology of organizations, economics or
political science to shed light on the conditions under which conservation accounts could
substantially transform organized action in a way favorable to ecological systems. Yet,
chances are high that mobilizing intellectual resources coming from these fields will prove to
be largely inadequate for this task. Indeed, one must consider the unique nature of both (1)
ecological issues, which are most often transversal to a multiplicity of organizations,
simultaneously scientific and social, often not well spatially bounded and are the direct or
indirect consequence of the way society is already organized and institutionalized today; (2)
and of the types of organized action systems, accountability relationships, and the forms of
agency required to resolve ecological issues and conserve ecological systems. Rather than
trying to transfer directly organizational models from other fields, one should clarify and
improve specific organizational models to be used as the basis for organized action and for
promoting accountability in the field of ecosystem conservation.

A first step in that direction consists in clarifying through reflection and critique what
conceptions of organized action are already in use and underpin the work of conservation
accountants. EISC promoters such as the NCP scientists are indeed well aware that issues
related to the production and use of evaluative information on ecosystems cannot be
addressed in total disconnection from the organizing for which their tools are developed.
From our observation of the debates in the conservation community and in the EISC
literature, we find for instance that three main conceptions of organized action for ecosystems
dominate current discourse and practice of EISC design and use: a rational model of decision-
making (see for instance Tallis and Polasky, 2011); pragmatic trial and error approaches in
contexts where socio-economic ‘enabling conditions’, institutional capacity and demonstrated
interest in using ecological information are already in place (see for instance Berghöfer et al.,
2016; Ruckelshaus et al., 2015, p. 12; TEEB, 2012a, 2012b); participatory approaches
promoting stakeholders engagement (see for instance Koschke et al., 2014; McKenzie et al.,
2011, 2012). However, these conceptions (1) draw from a limited repertoire of options for
understanding and designing organized action and (2) they are most of the time not made

14
 explicit by conservation account producers nor by the accounts users. This drastically reduces
the scope of analyzing and acting towards a possible fit between EISC and organizational
functioning. Critique and reflection to shed light on such underlying organizational models
constitute an important first step to improve the links between evaluative information systems
and organized action in the field of biodiversity conservation.

In view of the quite limited scope of the current prevalent models of organized action, and
of the serious limitations that affect each of them, a second step will be necessary to
effectively reduce the gap between the use of conservation accounts and their ability to create
change in practice. We suggest here to enrich EISC users’ and their to be accounting research
collaborators’ conception of the organizational dimensions of their accounts by extending
very actively the repertoire of theories that are used to shed light on the design of EISC and
accounting systems for the management of ecosystems. Indeed, because SEA researchers and
ecosystem national accounting researchers mostly work on well-established accounting
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

entities such as firms or states, they both can already rely on a large spectrum of available
organizational models and theories analyzing the functioning and management of their
respective entities. EISC promoters however, work on accounting entities ‘in the making’ that
do not yet have the same level of institutionalization or historical depth as states or firms.
They now need to mobilize theories that are particularly relevant in – and are developed for
the very purpose of – addressing the institutional, political and organizational issues of the
specific perimeters of collective action to resolve ecological issues and manage ecosystems.

For now, we will only point here to three theories that we believe could play such a role:
(1) Ostrom’s Common-Pool-Resources theory (Ostrom, 1990; Ostrom et al., 1994) to reflect
on the design of accounting for the management of ecosystems able to support the
negotiation, establishment, institutionalization and monitoring of systems of rules for the
management of a shared ecological resource among multiple users; (2) Latour’s Politics of
Nature (Latour, 2004) to reflect on the roles that conservation accountants could play at
different steps of the collective treatment and institutionalization of a new ecological entity;
(3) the Strategic Environmental Management Analysis framework developed collectively in
France in the 1990s (Mermet, 1992, 2011; Mermet et al., 2005, 2014, pp. 285–305; Mermet
and Leménager, 2015) to reflect on the design of accounting for the management of
ecosystems that can be used to support strategies for making others accountable in adversative
contexts around the management of an ecological entity. Each of these theories provides very
different but complementary analytical insights and useful guidance to clarify the definition of
new accounting entities, the design and use of innovative EISC/conservation accounts and to
better organize on their basis “systems of accountability” (Roberts, 1991; Roberts and
Scapens, 1985) that are indispensable to establish a long term and robust collective
management of ecological systems.

7. Conclusion: a research agenda for Accounting for the Management of Ecosystem

To sum-up, in our view the on-going efforts to develop organization-centered biodiversity

accounting innovations and national ecosystem accounting should be completed by a third
layer of self-standing accounting innovation, centered on the organization of emerging
ecological system management perimeters. We suggest referring to this agenda as Accounting
for the management of ecosystems (AfME). In this perspective, EISC can be considered as
new forms of ecological accounts, inserted in complex accountability relationships dynamics
and used in a diversity of collective organized action settings, that can be regarded as the new
accounting entities on which to focus. To go further, we suggest that directly transferring the
15
 rich heritage of accounting research to the realm of conservation would not lead to expected
outcomes. The gap is too large between the types of organizational and institutional issues
that have been addressed by accounting research for decades, and the kinds of organizational
and institutional contexts faced by conservation practitioners who use EISC in their attempts
to solve ecological issues.

To close this gap between accounting research and ecological issues management, we
believe that two things are required. First, we need to mobilize the concepts, methods and
findings developed by critical accounting research in its quest for a refined understanding of
the intimate connections between the social, organizational and political dimensions of
accounting systems. Critical accounting as well as SEA can provide (1) in depth treatment of
key accounting concepts such as the definition of accounting entities and perimeters, the
understanding of systems of accountability, the transformative power of the use of calculative
practices, the roles played by accountants in organizational functioning, etc.; (2) the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

experience of a research field on organizations and accounting systems built on both empirical
field studies and the mobilization of a large spectrum of theories coming from various other
disciplines. This accumulated knowledge and experience in the field of accounting can be the
basis of rich discussions and applied collaborative research between accounting researchers
and those in the field of conservation who develop innovative EISC and use them in various
collective action contexts to obtain ecological results. Secondly, for critical accounting
insights to be relevant in the realm of ecological systems conservation, they need to be
combined with theoretical resources specifically relevant for the types of organized action and
accountability systems that need to be established to resolve such ecological issues. As we
have suggested in this paper, this should rest on the first hand on criticizing prevalent (and
often implicit) conceptions of organized action underlying the current use of EISC, and on the
other hand on the use of more explicit and more powerful conceptual models and theories.

Overall, we think that four main characteristics make all the difference between EISC
doomed to remain ‘proto-accounting’ systems (i.e. not well connected to organized
conservation action in the appropriate perimeters) and EISC designed and used as full-fledged
accounting systems for emerging perimeters of collective ecosystem management: (1) the use
of evaluative information and calculative practices in a way that establishes or strengthens
reciprocal commitments among various organizations concerned by a shared ecological issue;
(2) the possibility to effectively enforce these inter-organizational accountabilities through
accounts exchange; (3) the periodicity of account exchange practices and their maintenance
over time; (4) the gradual routinization and technical equipment of these accountabilities and
associated organizational practices.

By designing and treating EISC as Accounting for the management of ecosystems, that is
by recognizing and studying their profound connections to organized action and their
institutional, political and organizational dimensions, it will become possible to articulate
organization-centered accounting for biodiversity innovations and ecosystem accounting at
the national scale with their missing link: the gradual institutionalization of collective regimes
of accountabilities centered on ecological issues in emerging perimeters. Such an articulation
under the shared umbrella of accounting, both as a technical and practical field specialized in
the design and use of calculative information systems and as a well-equipped critical domain
of social science research, will open the door to an investigation of the problem of global
biodiversity conservation as an issue of accountability at all scales and across current formal
organizational and institutional boundaries.

16
 Bibliography

Ahrens, T. (2009), “Everyday Accounting Practices and Intentionality”, in Chapman, C.S.,

Cooper, D.J. and Miller, P. (Eds.), Accounting, Organizations, and Institutions. Essays in
Honour of Anthony Hopwood, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 30–47.

Ahrens, T., Becker, A., Burns, J., Chapman, C.S., Granlund, M., Habersam, M., Hansen, A.,
et al. (2008), “The future of interpretive accounting research—A polyphonic debate”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 840–866.

Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C.S. (2006), “Doing qualitative field research in management
accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory”, Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 31, pp. 819–841.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C.S. (2007), “Management accounting as practice”, Accounting,

Organizations and Society, Vol. 32 No. 1-2, pp. 1–27.

Albert, C., Hauck, J., Buhr, N. and von Haaren, C. (2014), “What ecosystem services
information do users want? Investigating interests and requirements among landscape and
regional planners in Germany”, Landscape Ecology, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 1301–1313.

Allen, B.G. (2014), “What’s new about New accounts? Assessing change proposals for social
and environmental accounting”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 278–287.

Arkema, K.K., Guannel, G., Verutes, G., Wood, S.A., Guerry, A., Ruckelshaus, M., Kareiva,
P., et al. (2013), “Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms”,
Nature Climate Change, Vol. 3, pp. 913–918.

Armstrong, P. (2008), “Calling out for more: Comment on the future of interpretive
accounting research”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 867–879.

Atkins, J., Gräbsch, C. and Jones, M. (2014), “Corporate biodiversity reporting: exploring its
anthropocentric nature”, in Jones, M.J. (Ed.), Accounting for Biodiversity, Routledge, Oxon,
pp. 215–244.

Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D.J., Waage, S. and Winthrop, R. (2013), “A comparative

assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation”,
Ecosystem Services, Vol. 5, pp. 27–39.

Ball, A. (2007), “Environmental accounting as workplace activism”, Critical Perspectives on

Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 759–778.

Ball, A. and Craig, R. (2010), “Using neo-institutionalism to advance social and

environmental accounting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 283–293.

Baxter, J., Boedker, C. and Chua, W.F. (2008), “The future(s) of interpretive accounting
research—A polyphonic response from beyond the metropolis”, Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 880–886.

Baxter, J. and Fong Chua, W. (2003), “Alternative management accounting research -

17
 Whence and whither”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 28 No. 97 -126.

Bebbington, J. and Gray, R. (2001), “An Account of Sustainability: Failure, Success and a
Reconceptualization”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 557–588.

Bebbington, J. and Larrinaga, C. (2014), “Accounting, Organizations and Society Accounting

and sustainable development : An exploration”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol.
39 No. 6, pp. 395–413.

Berghöfer, A., Brown, C., Bruner, A., Emerton, L., Esen, E., Geneletti, D., Kosmus, M., et al.
(2016), Increasing the Policy Impact of Ecosystem Service Assessments and Valuations - In-
Sights from Practice, ValuES project, p. 30.

Berghöfer, A., Wittich, A., Wittmer, H., Emerton, L., Kosmus, M. and van Zyl, H. (2015),
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Synthesis of the ValuES Analysis of 19 Ecosystem Service Assessments for Different Purposes
– Insights from Practical Experience, ValuES Project Report, Helmholtz-Zentrum für
Umweltforschung (UFZ) GmbH, Leipzig, and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Eschborn, Germany, Germany, p. 26.

Bernhardt, J., Guerry, A., McKenzie, E., Toft, J. and Wood, S.A. (2012), InVEST Scenarios
Case Study: Vancouver Island, Canada, World Wildlife Fund and Natural Capital Project,
available at: http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/pubs/Vancouver_CS.pdf.

Bhagabati, A.N., Barano, T., Conte, M., Ennaanay, D., Hadian, O., Mckenzie, E., Olwero, N.,
et al. (2012), A Green Vision for Sumatra: Using Ecosystem Services Information to Make
Recommendations for Sustainable Land Use Planning at the Province and District Level, The
Natural Capital Project, WWF-US, and WWF-Indonesia.

Bhimani, A. (Ed.). (2006), Contemporary Issues in Management Accounting, Oxford

University Press, Oxford.

Birch, J.C., Thapa, I., Balmford, A., Bradbury, R.B., Brown, C., Butchart, S.H.M., Gurung,
H., et al. (2014), “What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom ? A rapid
assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest , Nepal”, Ecosystem Services, Vol.
8, pp. 118–127.

Birkin, F. (1996), “The ecological accountant: from the cogito to thinking like a mountain”,
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 7, pp. 231–257.

Birkin, F. (2000), “The art of accounting for science: A prerequesite for sustainable
development?”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 11 No. July 1999.

Birkin, F. (2003), “Ecological accounting : new tools for a sustainable culture”, International
Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 49–61.

Birkin, F., Edwards, P. and Woodward, D. (2005), “Accounting’s contribution to a conscious

cultural evolution: an end to sustainable development”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 185–208.

Blackburn, N., Borwn, J., Dillard, J. and Hooper, V. (2014), “A Dialogic Framing of AIS-

18
 SEA Design”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp.
83–101.

BoM. (2013), Guide to Environmental Accounting in AUstralia, Environmental Information

Programme Publication Series No. 3, Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra, Australia, p. 122.

Booth, H., Simpson, L., Ling, M., Mohammed, O., Brown, C., Garcia, K. and Walpole, M.
(2012), Lessons Learned from Carrying out Ecosystem Assessments: Experiences from
Members of the Sub-Global Assessment Network, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.

Borsato, R., Mendes Filho, J.T., Milano, M.S., Salzmann, A.M., Brasil, B., Alexandre, M.A.,
De Lourdes Silva Nunes, M., et al. (2014), “Biodiversity accountability in Brazil: the role of
LIFE Certification”, in Jones, M.J. (Ed.), Accounting for Biodiversity, Routledge, Oxon, pp.
172–188.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Katsunori, I., Larson, J., Lazarus, E., et al.
(2013), “Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s regenerative capacity: The
National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework”, Ecological
Indicators, Vol. 24, pp. 518–533.

Bouni, C. (1996), Développement Durable et Macro-Systèmes D’information: Des Comptes

D’environnement À L’aide Multi-Critère À La Décision, Economie, Université de Paris I
Panthéon-Sorbonne.

Boyd, J. and Banzhaf, S. (2007), “What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized
environmental accounting units”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 63 No. 2-3, pp. 616–626.

Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (2013), Accounting Control and Controlling Accounting:

Interdisciplinary and Critical Perspectives, Emerald Publishing.

Brown, D., Dillard, J. and Marshall, S. (2005), “Incorporating Natural Systems as Part of
Accounting’s Public Interest Responsibility”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 79–104.

Brown, J. (2009), “Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking

pluralism seriously”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 313–342.

Brown, J. and Dillard, J. (2013), “Agonizing over engagement: SEA and the ‘death of
environmentalism’ debates”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1–18.

Brown, J. and Dillard, J. (2015), “Dialogic accountings for stakeholders: O, opening up and
closing down participatory governance”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp.
961–985.

Brown, J., Dillard, J. and Hopper, T. (2015), “Accounting, accountants, and accountability
regimes in pluralistic societies: taking multile perspectives seriously”, Accounting , Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 626–650.

Busco, C. and Quattrone, P. (2015), “Exploring How the Balanced Scorecard Engages and
Unfolds: Articulating the Visual Power of Accounting Inscriptions”, Contemporary

19
 Accounting Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 1236–1262.

Cabral, P., Feger, C., Levrel, H., Chambolle, M. and Basque, D. (2016), “Assessing the
impact of land-cover changes on ecosystem services: A first step toward integrative planning
in Bordeaux, France”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. In press.

Callicott, J.B., Crowder, L.B. and Mumford, K. (1999), “Current normative concepts in
conservation”, Conservation Biology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 22–35.

Campbell, E.T. and Tilley, D.R. (2014), “Valuing ecosystem services from Maryland forests
using environmental accounting”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 7, pp. 141–151.

Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Bostrom, A.,
Chuenpagdee, R., et al. (2012), “Where are Cultural and Social in Ecosystem Services ? A
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Framework for Constructive Engagement”, BioScience, Vol. 62 No. 8, pp. 744–756.

Chapman, C., Hopwood, A. and Shields, M. (2008), Handbook of Management Accounting

Research, Vol. 2, Elsevier, Oxford.

Chapman, C.S., Cooper, D.J. and Miller, P. (Eds.). (2009a), Accounting, Organizations, and
Institutions. Essays in Honour of Anthony Hopwood, Oxford University Press, New York.

Chapman, C.S., Cooper, D.J. and Miller, P.B. (2009b), “Linking Accounting, Organizations,
and Institutions”, Accounting, Organizations, and Institutions. Essays in Honour of Anthony
Hopwood, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 1–29.

Chaveriat, C., Ghitalla, F., Pelegrin, F., Fadil, F. and Le Roux, X. (2011), La Base de
Données Nationales Des Acteurs, Structures et Projets de Recherche Sur La Biodiversité:
Présentation et Analyse Du Paysage de La Recherche, Rapport FRB, Fondation pour la
Recherche sur la Biodiversité, p. 36.

Chisholm, R.A. (2010), “Trade-offs between ecosystem services : Water and carbon in a
biodiversity hotspot”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 69 No. 10, pp. 1973–1987.

Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T. and Kenter, jasperO. (2012), “An evaluation of
monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and
ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies”, Ecological
Economics, Vol. 83, pp. 67–78.

Cimon-Morin, J., Darveau, M. and Poulin, M. (2013), “Fostering synergies between

ecosystem services and biodiversity in conservation planning: A review”, Biological
Conservation, Vol. 166, pp. 144–154.

Cooper, C. (1992), “The Non and Nom of Accounting for ( M ) other Nature”, Accounting ,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 16–39.

Covaleski, M. and Aiken, M. (1986), “Accounting and theories of organizations: some

preliminary considerations”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 11 No. 4/5, pp.
297–319.

20
 Crozier, M. and Friedberg, E. (1995), “Organizations and collective action: our contribution
to organizational analysis”, in Bacharach, S.., Gagliardi, P. and Mundell, B. (Eds.), Research
in the Sociology of Organizations: Studies of Organizations in the European Tradition, Vol.
13, JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 71–92.

Cuckston, T. (2013), “Bringing tropical forest biodiversity conservation into financial

accounting calculation”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp.
688–714.

Cullen, D. and Whelan, C. (2006), “Environmental Management Accounting : The State of

Play”, Journal of Business & Economic Research, Vol. 4 No. 10, pp. 1–6.

Daily, G.C., Kareiva, P.M., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T.H. and Tallis, H. (2011), “Mainstreaming
natural capital into decisions”, Natural Capital. Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Services, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 3–14.

Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts,
T.H., et al. (2009), “Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver”, Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 21–28.

Dale, V.H. and Beyeler, S.C. (2001), “Challenges in the development and use of ecological
indicators”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3–10.

Davies, J. (2014), “Full cost accounting - integrating biodiversity”, in Jones, M.. (Ed.),
Accounting for Biodiversity, Routledge, Oxon, pp. 81–102.

Deegan, C. (2013), “The accountant will have a central role in saving the planet...really? A
reflection on ‘green accounting and green eyeshades twenty years later’”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 448–458.

Dey, C. and Russell, S. (2014), “Who speaks for the river? Exploring biodiversity accounting
using an arena approach”, in Jones, M.. (Ed.), Accounting for Biodiversity, Routledge, Oxon,
pp. 245–266.

Dillard, J. and Yuthas, K. (2013), “Critical dialogics, agonistic pluralism, and accounting
information systems”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 14, pp.
113–119.

EC. (2013), System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012. Experimental Ecosystem

Accounting, European Commission, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, United Nations, World Bank, available at:
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/eea_white_cover.pdf.

Edens, B. and Hein, L. (2013), “Towards a consistent approach for ecosystem accounting”,
Ecological Economics, Vol. 90, pp. 41–52.

Elad, C. (2014), “Forest certification and biodiversity accounting in the Congo basin
countries”, in Jones, M.. (Ed.), Accounting for Biodiversity, Routledge, Oxon, pp. 189–211.

Eugénio, T., Lourenço, I.C. and Morais, A.I. (2010), “Recent developments in social and

21
 environmental accounting research”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 286–
305.

Eurostat. (2002), European Framework for Integrated Environmental and Economic

Accounting for Forests - IEEAF, Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities, Luxembourg.

Everett, J. (2004), “Exploring (false) dualisms for environmental accounting praxis”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 1061–1084.

Feger, C. (2016), Nouvelles Comptabilités Au Service Des Écosystèmes. Une Recherche

Engagée Auprès D’une Entreprise Du Secteur de L’environnement., Sciences de gestion,
AgroParisTech, Paris, February.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Feger, C., Cabral, P., Basque, D., Levrel, H. and Chambolle, M. (2015), “Grand cycle de
l’eau, évaluation des services écosystémiques et aménagement du territoire: un premier retour
d’expérience”, Techniques Sciences Méthodes, Vol. 9, pp. 56–57.

Frame, B. and Cavanagh, J. (2009), “Experiences of sustainability assessment: An awkward

adolescence”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 195–208.

Georgakopoulos, G. and Thomson, I. (2008), “Social reporting, engagements, controversies

and conflict in an arena context”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No.
8, pp. 1116 – 1143.

Goldstein, J.H., Caldarone, G., Duarte, T.K., Ennaanay, D., Hannahs, N., Mendoza, G.,
Polasky, S., et al. (2012), “Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions”,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 109
No. 19, pp. 7565–70.

Gray, R. (1992), “Accounting and environmentalism: an exploration of the challenge of

gently accounting for accountability, transparency and sustainability”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 399–425.

Gray, R. (2007), “Taking a Long View on What We Now Know About Social and
Environmental Accountability and Reporting”, Issues in Social and Environmental
Accounting, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 169–198.

Gray, R. (2008), “Social and Environmental Accounting and Reporting : From Ridicule to
Revolution ? From Hope to Hubris ? - A Personal Review of the Field”, Issues in Social and
Environmental Accounting, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 3–18.

Gray, R. (2010), “Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability...and
how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35, pp. 47–62.

Gray, R. (2013), “Back to basics: What do we mean by environmental (and social) accounting
and what is it for?—A reaction to Thornton”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 24
No. 6, pp. 459–468.

22
 Gray, R., Adams, C.A. and Owen, D. (2014), Accountability, Social Responsibility and
Sustainability: Accounting for Society and the Environment, Pearson, Harlow, UK.

Gray, R., Brennan, A. and Malpas, J. (2014), “New accounts : Towards a reframing of social
accounting”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 258–273.

Gray, R., Walters, D., Bebbington, J. and Thompson, I. (1995), “The greening of enterprise:
An exploration of the (non) role of environmental accounting and environmental accountants
in organizational change”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 6, pp. 211–239.

GRI. (2011), Approach for Reporting on Ecosystem Services. Incorporating Ecosystem

Services into an Organization’s Performance Disclosure, Global Reporting Initiative,
available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Approach-for-reporting-on-
ecosystem-services.pdf.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Guerry, A.D., Arkema, K.K., Bernhardt, J.R., Guannel, G., Kim, C., Marsik, M., Papenfus,
M., et al. (2012), “Modeling benefits from nature : using ecosystem services to inform coastal
and marine spatial planning”, International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem
Services and Management, pp. 1–15.

Gundimeda, H., Sukhdev, P., Sinha, R.K. and Sanyal, S. (2007), “Natural resource accounting
for Indian states — Illustrating the case of forest resources”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 61,
pp. 637–649.

Hanson, C., Van Der Lugt, C. and Ozment, S. (2011), Nature in Performance: Initial
Recommendations for Integrating Ecosystem Services into Business Performance System,
World Resources Institute, Washington, D. C.

Havas, J., Matsui, T., Shaw, R.N. and Machimura, T. (2014), “Ecosystem services
management tool development guidelines and framework revision for industries, industry
policy makers and industry groups”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 7, pp. 187–200.

Heink, U. and Kowarik, I. (2010), “What are indicators? On the definition of indicators in
ecology and environmental planning”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 584–593.

Hein, L., Obst, C., Edens, B. and Remme, R.. (2015), “Progress and challenges in the
development of ecosystem accounting as a tool to analyse ecosystem capital”, Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 14, pp. 86–92.

Herbohn, K. (2005), “A full cost environmental accounting experiment”, Accounting,

Organizations and Society, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 519–536.

Hopper, T., Scapens, R.W. and Northcott, D. (2007), Issues in Management Accounting,
Pentice Hall, Financial Times., 3, London.

Hopwood, A.. (1983), “On trying to study accounting in the contexts in which it operates”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 8, pp. 287–305.

Hopwood, A.G. (1976), “Editorial : Accounting, Organizationsand Society”, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp.
1–4.

23
 Hopwood, G. (2007), “Whither Accounting Research?”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 82 No.
5, pp. 1365–1374.

Horngren, C.T. and Sundem, G.L. (1990), Introduction to Management Accounting, Prentice-
Hall, New Jersey, Englewoods Cliffs.

Houdet. (2010), Entreprises, Biodiversité et Services Écosystémiques. Quelles Interactions et

Stratégies ? Quelles Comptabilités ?, Sciences de gestion, AgroParisTech.

Houdet, J. (2012), Le Bilan Biodiversité. Une Méthodologie Pour Intégrer La Nature Dans
Votre Comptabilité, Naturparif., Victoires Editions, Paris.

Houdet, J. and Germaneau, C. (2014), “Accounting for biodiversity and ecosystem services
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

from an EMA perspective: towards a standardised biodiversity footprint methodology”, in

Jones, M.. (Ed.), Accounting for Biodiversity, Routledge, Oxon, pp. 62–80.

Ionescu, C. (2016), Biodiversité et Stratégie Des Organisations : Construire Des Outils Pour
Gérer Des Relations Multiples et Inter-Temporelles, Economies et finances, Grenoble Alpes,
France.

Jones, M. (2014a), Accounting for Biodiversity, Routledge, Oxon.

Jones, M. (2014b), “Accounting for biodiversity: rationale and overview”, in Jones, M. (Ed.),
Accounting for Biodiversity, Routledge, Oxon, pp. 3–20.

Jones, M. (2014c), “Creating a theoretical framework for biodiversity accounting”, in Jones,

M. (Ed.), Accounting for Biodiversity, Routledge, Oxon, pp. 23–38.

Jones, M.J. (1996), “Accounting for biodiversity : a pilote study”, British Accounting Review,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 281–303.

Jones, M.J. (2003), “Accounting for biodiversity: operationalising environmental accounting”,

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 762–789.

Jones, M.J. and Solomon, J.F. (2013), “Problematising accounting for biodiversity”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 668–687.

Jones-Walters, L. and Mulder, I. (2009), “Valuing nature : The economics of biodiversity”,

Journal for Nature Conservation, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 245–247.

Jørgensen, S.E., Burkhard, B. and Müller, F. (2013), “Twenty volumes of ecological

indicators – An accounting short review”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 28, pp. 4–9.

Kaghan, W. (2004), “Accounting practices and networks of accountancy: a comment on

‘What is measured counts’ by Kala Saravanamuthu”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 325–329.

Kallis, G., Gómez-Baggethun, E. and Zografos, C. (2013), “To value or not to value? That is
not the question”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 94, pp. 97–105.

24
 Kareiva, P. and Marvier, M. (2012), “What Is Conservation Science?”, BioScience, Vol. 62
No. 11, pp. 962–969.

Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C. and Polasky, S. (2011), Natural Capital.
Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services, Oxford University Press, New York.

Kering. (2015), Kering Environmental Profit & Loss (E P&L). Methodology & 2013 Group
Results, Kering, available at: www.kering.com/en/sustainability.

Khan, T. (2014), “Kalimantan’s biodiversity: developing accounting models to prevent its

economic destruction”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp.
150–182.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Koschke, L., Van der Meulen, S., Frank, S., Schneidergruber, A., Kruse, M., Fürst, C.,
Neubert, E., et al. (2014), “Do You Have 5 Minutes To Spare ? – The Challenges Of
Stakeholder Processes In Ecosystem Services Studies”, Landscape Online, Vol. 37 No. April,
pp. 1–25.

Kurunmaki, L. (1999), “Making an accounting entity: the case of the hospital in Finnish
health care reforms”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 219–237.

Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C. and Bebbington, J. (2001), “Accounting change or institutional

appropriation?—A case study of the implementation of environmental accounting”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 269–292.

Larrinaga-Gonzalez, C., Carrasco-Fenech, F., Caro-Gonzalez, F., Correa-Ruiz, C. and Paez-

Sandubete, J. (2001), “The role of environmental accounting in organizational change. An
exploration of Spanish companies.”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 213–39.

Latour, B. (2004), Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R. and Mermet, L. (2013), “Use of ecosystem
services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot”, Journal
of Environmental Management, Vol. 119, pp. 208–219.

Van Liempd, D. and Busch, J. (2013), “Biodiversity reporting in Denmark”, Accounting,

Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 833–872.

MacDonald, D.H., Bark, R.D. and Coggan, A. (2014), “Is ecosystem service research used by
decision-makers? A case study of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia”, Landscape Ecology,
Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 1447–1460.

Macintosh, N. and Quattrone, P. (2010), Management Accounting and Control Systems. An

Organizational and Sociological Approach, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex,
UK.

Mäler, K.-G., Aniyar, S. and Jansson, A. (2008), “Accounting for Ecosystem Services as a

25
 Way to Understand the Requirements for Sustainable Development”, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 105 No. 28, pp. 9501–
9606.

Malmi, T. and Granlund, M. (2009), “In Search of Management Accounting Theory”,

European Accounting Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 597–620.

Mascia, M.B., Brosius, J.P., Dobson, T.A., Forbes, B.C., Mckean, M.A. and Turner, N.J.
(2003), “Conservation and the Social Sciences”, Conservation Biology, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp.
649–650.

Mathews, M.R. (1997), “Twenty‐five years of social and environmental accounting research:
Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate?”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol.
10 No. 4, pp. 481 – 531.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Mathews, M.R. (2000), The Development of Social and Environmental Accounting Research
1995-2000, Discussion paper series No. 205, School of Accountancy, Massey University,
Palmerston, New Zealand, p. 44.

McKenzie, E., Irwin, F., Ranganathan, J., Hanson, C., Kousky, C., Bennett, K., Ruffo, S., et
al. (2011), “Incorporating ecosystem services into decisions”, in Kareiva, P., Tallis, H.,
Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C. and Polasky, S. (Eds.), Natural Capital. Theory and Practice of
Mapping Ecosystem Services, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 339–355.

McKenzie, E., Posner, S., Tillmann, P., Bernhardt, J.R., Howard, K. and Rosenthal, A.
(2014), “Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons
from international experiences of spatial planning”, Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 320–340.

McKenzie, E., Rosenthal, A., Bernhardt, J., Girvetz, E., Kovacs, K., Olwero, N. and Toft, J.
(2012), Developing Scenarios to Assess Ecosystem Service Tradeoffs: Guidance and Case
Studies for InVEST Users, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

MEA. (2005), Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being :

Synthesis, Island Press., Washington, D. C., available at:
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html.

Mermet, L. (1992), Stratégies Pour La Gestion De L’environnement - La Nature Comme Jeu

De Société, L’Harmattan, Paris.

Mermet, L. (2011), “Strategic Environmental Management Analysis : Addressing the Blind

Spots of Collaborative Approaches”, Iddri - Pour Le Débat, Vol. 11 No. 05.

Mermet, L., Billé, R., Leroy, M., Narcy, J. and Poux, X. (2005), “L’analyse stratégique de la
gestion environnementale : un cadre théorique pour penser l’efficacité en matière
d’environnement”, Natures Sciences Sociétés, Vol. 13, pp. 127–137.

Mermet, L., Homewood, K., Dobson, A. and Billé, R. (2013), “Five paradigms of collective
action underlying the human dimension of conservation”, in Mcdonald, D.W. and Willis, K.J.
(Eds.), Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.

26
 Mermet, L., Laurans, Y. and Leménager, T. (2014), Tools for What Trade? Utilization of
Economic Instruments and Valuations in Biodiversity Management, Agence Française de
Développement, Paris, available at:
http://www.afd.fr/jahia/webdav/site/afd/shared/PUBLICATIONS/RECHERCHE/Scientifique
s/A-savoir/25-VA-A-Savoir.pdf.

Mermet, L. and Leménager, T. (2015), Development and Biodiversity: Navigating the

Environmental Turning Point, Agence Française de Développement, Paris, available at:
http://www.afd.fr/jahia/webdav/site/afd/shared/PUBLICATIONS/RECHERCHE/Scientifique
s/Recherches/04-VA-Recherches.pdf.

Miller, P. (1992), “Accounting and Objectivity: The Invention of Calculating Selves and
Calculable Spaces”, Annals of Scholarship, Vol. 9 No. 1/2, pp. 61–85.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Miller, P. (2001), “Governing by Numbers : Why Calculative Practices Matter”, Social

Research, Vol. 68 No. 2.

Miller, P. and O’Leary, T. (1987), “Accounting and the construction of the governable
person”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 235–265.

Milne, M. (2007), “Downsizing Reg (me and you)! Addressing the ‘real’ sustainability
agenda at work and home”, Mega Accounting and Beyond: A Festschrift in Honour of MR
Mathews, The Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research, St. Andrews, pp.
49–66.

Milne, M.J. (1991), “Accounting, environmental resource values, and non-market valuation
techniques for environmental resources: A review”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3.

Milne, M.J. (1996), “On sustainability, the environment and management accounting”,
Environmental Protection, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 135–161.

Milne, M.J. and Gray, R. (2013), “W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global
reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.
118 No. 1, pp. 13–29.

Milne, M.J., Tregidga, H. and Walton, S. (2009), “Words not actions! The ideological role of
sustainable development reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 22
No. 8, pp. 1211–1257.

Müller, F. and Burkhard, B. (2012), “The indicator side of ecosystem services”, Ecosystem
Services, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 26–30.

Naro, G. (2010), “Perspectives critiques en comptabilité: le nouveau management public en

question”, in Palpacuer, F., Leroy, M. and Naro, G. (Eds.), Management, Mondialisation et
Écologie. Regards Critiques En Sciences de Gestion, Hermes Science Publications, Paris, pp.
185–213.

NCC. (2016), Natural Capital Protocol, Natural Capital Coalition, available at:

27
 www.naturalcapitalcoalition.org/protocol.

Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, Dr., Chan, K.M., et al.
(2009), “Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity
production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 4–11.

Niemeijer, D. and de Groot, R.S. (2008), “A conceptual framework for selecting

environmental indicator sets”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 14–25.

Onaindia, M., Fernández de Manuel, B., Madariaga, I. and Rodríguez-Loinaz, G. (2013), “Co-
benefits and trade-offs between biodiversity, carbon storage and water flow regulation”,
Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 289, pp. 1–9.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. and Walker, J. (1994), Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources,
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.

Owen, D. (2008), “Chronicles of wasted time? A personal reflection on the current state of,
and future prospects for, social and environmental accounting research”, Accounting, Auditing
& Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 240–267.

Parker, L.D. (2005), “Social and environmental accountability research: A view from the
commentary box”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 842–
860.

Parker, L.D. (2008), “Interpreting interpretive accounting research”, Critical Perspectives on

Accounting, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 909–914.

Parker, L.D. (2011), “Twenty-one years of social and environmental accountability research:
A coming of age”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1–10.

Peh, K.S., Balmford, A., Bradbury, R.B., Brown, C., Butchart, S.H.M., Hughes, F.M.R.,
Stattersfield, A., et al. (2013), “TESSA : A toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services
at sites of biodiversity conservation importance”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 5, pp. 51–57.

Polasky, S., Caldarone, G., Duarte, T.K., Goldstein, J., Hannahs, N., Ricketts, T. and Tallis,
H. (2011), “Putting ecosystem service models to work: conservation, management and trade-
offs”, in Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C. and Polasky, S. (Eds.), Natural
Capital. Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services, Oxford University Press, New
York, pp. 249–263.

Posner, S., McKenzie, E. and Ricketts, T.H. (2016), “Policy impacts of ecosystem services
knowledge”, PNAS, Vol. 113 No. 7, pp. 1760–1765.

Posner, S., Verutes, G., Koh, I., Denu, D. and Ricketts, T. (2016), “Global use of ecosystem
service models”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 17, pp. 131–141.

28
 Primmer, E. and Furman, E. (2012), “Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for
governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge
systems?”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 85–92.

PUMA. (2010), PUMA’s Environmental Profit and Loss Account for the Year Ended 31
December 2010, PUMA, available at: http://glasaaward.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/01/EPL080212final.pdf.

Quattrone, P. (2009), “‘ We have never been Post-modern’: On the Search of Management

Accounting Theory”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 621–630.

Raar, J. (2014), “Biodiversity and regional authorities: a common-pool resources and

accounting perspective”, in Jones, M.. (Ed.), Accounting for Biodiversity, Routledge, Oxon,
pp. 103–123.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Rambaud, A. and Richard, J. (2015), “The ‘Triple Depreciation Line’ instead of the ‘Triple
Bottom Line’: Towards a genuine integrated reporting”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
pp. 1–49.

Rametsteiner, E., Pülz, H., Johanna, A.-O. and Frederiksen, P. (2011), “Sustainability
indicator development - Science or political negotiation”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 11, pp.
61–70.

Rapport, D.J. and Hildén, M. (2013), “An evolving role for ecological indicators: From
documenting ecological conditions to monitoring drivers and policy responses”, Ecological
Indicators, Vol. 28, pp. 10–15.

Remme, R.P., Schröter, M. and Hein, L. (2014), “Developing spatial biophysical accounting
for multiple ecosystem services”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 10, pp. 6–18.

Richard, J. (2012), Comptabilité et Développement Durable, Economica, Paris.

Rimmel, G. and Jonäll, K. (2013), “Biodiversity reporting in Sweden: corporate disclosure

and preparers’ views”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 746
– 778.

Roberts, J. (1991), “The possibilities of accountability”, Accounting Organizations and

Society, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 355–368.

Roberts, J. and Scapens, R.W. (1985), “Accounting systems and systems of accountability -
Understanding accounting practices in their organisational contexts”, Accounting
Organizations and Society, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 443–456.

Rosenthal, A., Verutes, G., McKenzie, E., Arkema, K.K., Bhagabati, N., Bremer, L.L.,
Olwero, N., et al. (2014), “Process matters: a framework for conducting decision-relevant
assessments of ecosystem services”, International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem
Services & Management, pp. 1–15.

Roslender, R. and Dillard, J.F. (2003), “Reflections on the interdisciplinary perspectives on

accounting project”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 14, pp. 325–351.

29
 Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H., Guerry, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., Polasky, S., et
al. (2015), “Notes from the field: Lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to
inform real-world decisions”, Ecological Economics, No. 115, pp. 11–21.

Saravanamuthu, K. and Lehman, C. (2013), “Enhancing stakeholder interaction through

environmental risk accounts”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 410–
437.

Schröter, M., Barton, D.N., Remme, R.P. and Hein, L. (2014), “Accounting for capacity and
flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway”,
Ecological Indicators, Vol. 36, pp. 539–551.

Scoones, I. (1999), “New Ecology and the Social Sciences: What Prospects for a Fruitful
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Engagement ?”, Annual Reviw of Anthropology, Vol. 28, pp. 479–507.

Siddiqui, J. (2013), “Mainstreaming biodiversity accounting: potential implications for a

developing economy”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp.
779–805.

Soulé, M.E. (1985), “What is Conservation Biology ?”, BioScience, Vol. 35 No. 11, pp. 727–
734.

Spence, C., Husillos, J. and Correa-Ruiz, C. (2010), “Cargo cult science and the death of
politics: A critical review of social and environmental accounting research”, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 76–89.

Sukhdev, P. and Feger, C. (2012), “The Economics of Nature”, Business Standard Books,
Delhi.

Tallis, H. and Polasky, S. (2009), “Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach
for conservation and natural resources management”, Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, Vol. 1162, pp. 265–283.

Tallis, H. and Polasky, S. (2011), “Assessing multiple ecosystem services: an integrated tool
for the real world”, in Kareiva, P, Tallis, H., Ricketts, T.H., Daily, G.C. and Polasky, S.
(Eds.), Natural Capital. Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services, Oxford
University Press, New York, pp. 34–50.

TEEB. (2010), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic
Foundations, edited by Kumar, P., Earthscan, London and Washington.

TEEB. (2012a), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Business and Enterprise,
edited by Bishop, J., Earthscan, London and New York.

TEEB. (2012b), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Local and Regional Policy
and Management, edited by Wittmer, H. and Gundimeda, H., Earthscan, London and
Washington.

Thomson, I. (2014), “Biodiversity, international conventions, government strategy and

30
 indicators: the case of the UK”, Accounting for Biodiversity, Routledge, Oxon, pp. 149–171.

Thomson, I., Dey, C. and Russell, S. (2015), “Activism, arenas and accounts in conflicts over
tobacco control”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journa, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 809–845.

Tregidga, H. (2013), “Biodiversity offsetting: problematisation of an emerging governance

regime”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 806–832.

Turner, R.K. and Daily, G.C. (2008), “The Ecosystem Services Framework and Natural
Capital”, Environmental Resource Economics, Vol. 39, pp. 25–35.

Turner, R.K., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V. and Georgiou, S. (2003),
“Valuing nature : lessons learned and future research directions”, Ecological Economics, Vol.
46, pp. 493–510.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Turnhout, E., Hisschemöller, M. and Eijsackers, H. (2007), “Ecological indicators: Between

the two fires of science and policy”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 7, pp. 215–228.

UN. (2014), System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012—Central Framework,

United Nations,European Union, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
The World Bank, available at:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaRev/SEEA_CF_Final_en.pdf.

Vaissière, A., Levrel, H., Hily, C. and Le, D. (2013), “Selecting ecological indicators to
compare maintenance costs related to the compensation of damaged ecosystem services”,
Ecological Indicators, Vol. 29 No. April 2004, pp. 255–269.

Waage, S. and Kester, C. (2015), Making the Invisible Visible: Analytical Tools for Assessing
Business Impacts & Dependencies Upon Ecosystem Services, BSR, available at:
http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Analytical_Tools_for_Ecosystem_Services_2015.pdf.

WAVES. (2014), Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Service. Waves Annual
Report 2014., World Bank Group, available at: www.wavespartnership.org.

Weber, J. (2011), An Experimental Framework for Ecosystem Capital Accounting in Europe,

No. 13/2011, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.

Weber, J.-L. (2007), “Implementation of land and ecosystem accounts at the European
Environment Agency”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 695–707.

Weber, J.-L. (2014a), Ecosystem Natural Capital Accounts: A Quick Start Package, No. 77,
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, available at:
https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-77-en.pdf.

Weber, J.-L. (2014b), Experimental Ecosystems Natural Capital Accounts: Mauritius Case
Study. Methodology and Premiminary Results 2000-2010, Indian Ocean Commission,
available at: http://www.ecosystemaccounting.net/wp-
content/uploads/2014/11/ENCA_Mauritius_IOC2014.pdf.

31
 Young, R.P., Hudson, M.A., Terry, A.M.R., Jones, C.G., Lewis, R.E., Tatayah, V., Zuël, N.,
et al. (2014), “Accounting for conservation : Using the IUCN Red List Index to evaluate the
impact of a conservation organization”, Biological Conservation, Vol. 180, pp. 84–96.

Zhang, L., Liu, Q., Hall, N.W. and Fu, Z. (2007), “An environmental accounting framework
applied to green space ecosystem planning for small towns in China as a case study”,
Ecological Economics, Vol. 60, pp. 533–542.

Zhang, Y.I., Singh, S. and Bakshi, B.R. (2010a), “Accounting for Ecosystem Services in Life
Cycle Assessment, Part I : A Critical Review”, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 44
No. 7, pp. 2232–2242.

Zhang, Y.I., Singh, S. and Bakshi, B.R. (2010b), “Accounting for Ecosystem Services in Life
Cycle Assessment, Part II : Toward an Ecologically Based LCA”, Environmental Science &
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 10:06 18 August 2017 (PT)

Technology, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 2624–2631.

32